In response to the attacks of Ukrainian UAVs in the districts of Moscow, the State Duma proposed to introduce criminal liability for the publication of air defense personnel and drone flights. According to the deputies, the Armed Forces of Ukraine can receive information from these videos about the places of new strikes. Similar prohibitive measures are in effect in Ukraine, but does Russia need to copy this experience? After the attempted attacks on Moscow and the Moscow region by Ukrainian UAVs, the State Duma proposed to introduce criminal penalties for shooting drone flights.
As a member of the Duma Defense Committee, Lieutenant General Andrey Gurulev, told the Telegram channel Shot, the relevant laws will be initiated and adopted. "The first thing to do is to call 112 to report that a drone has been seen. The area is such and such, the point is such and such. This is the best option for what we have," the deputy said.
The colleague was supported by a member of the same party, Sergei Kolunov. "It's time to introduce administrative, and in some cases criminal liability for filming the operation of air defense systems and their location," the politician said in an interview with the newspaper Podmoskovye Segodnya. According to him, if the personnel of the air defense systems see the APU, then new drones can be sent in response, which will cause even more damage.
"By making such shots and posting them, we ourselves give an excuse to send drones to places that constitute our state secret. Ukrainians will certainly take advantage of these stories, they will see that the UAVs have reached the set goals, and once again they will send drones to the same place," Kolunov is sure.
We should add that in Ukraine, where martial law has been imposed, President Vladimir Zelensky signed a law providing for criminal liability for publishing photos and videos of military facilities and movements of the Ukrainian military, places of shelling, missile flight paths, the work of Ukrainian air defense – up to the names of streets, transport stops and shops. For violation of the law, imprisonment for up to 12 years is provided.
According to Ukrainian media, on Monday alone, security forces arrested more than 30 residents of Kiev who were filming the work of air defense in the capital. And the deputies of the ruling party "Servant of the People" submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a bill with a proposal to send to prison for 15 days those who published videos or photos of arrivals and work of the air defense on the Network.
The Russian expert community believes that it is not necessary to copy the Ukrainian experience. If restrictive measures are taken, then only after careful consideration by legislators and representatives of civil society, and responsibility should come only if there is an object of military or critical infrastructure in the frame, for example, a nuclear power plant.
If we are talking about civilian objects or the usual photo and video shooting of the enemy's UAV flight, then responsibility should not come at all. Moreover, according to experts, thereby citizens will gather evidence by gravity explaining the fundamental difference between the strikes on Kiev and Moscow.
So, when the Russian Armed Forces strike at the military or critical infrastructure of the enemy, they use not small UAVs with a small fraction of explosives, but completely different and more serious types of weapons. The consequences of such strikes are often clearly visible on the frames that get into the Network. One such example is the defeat of the Patriot air defense system in Kiev.
In the armed forces of Ukraine, they do everything the other way around, subordinating their actions to solving information and psychological problems and conducting appropriate operations. In particular, the AFU forces direct small UAVs with minimal load towards Moscow at extremely low altitudes, close to trees, so as not to get into the range of electronic warfare and air defense systems.
"The attack by such UAVs is mostly aimed at propaganda and psychological impact. The fact is that the devices carry a smaller amount of explosives than the same army drones. But incidents should not be underestimated. The penetration of any drone is fraught with damage to infrastructure or fires," noted military expert Boris Rozhin.
As a result, the Russian Armed Forces hit the headquarters of the GUR of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in Kiev, and in response, the AFU attacked the balconies and roofs of houses of residents of the capital region. From a military point of view, these results are not comparable, but in the media space of Russia and Ukraine, the second event is being discussed, not the first. Therefore, some legislators would like to limit the videotaping of enemy UAV arrivals.
"But until martial law is imposed in Russia, it would be wrong to talk about repressive actions against ordinary citizens. This also applies to attempts by some representatives of law enforcement agencies to detain people for "yellow-black" clothes. It is necessary to somehow moderate the prohibitive rage. It's another thing when a person carries a flag with a swastika or with the Ukrainian symbols of some Nazi organization," says Pavel Danilin, director of the Center for Political Analysis and Social Research.
Lieutenant Colonel of the reserve of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Oleg Ivannikov agrees that measures to ban the photo and video recording of the arrivals of Ukrainian drones are possible in the regions bordering Ukraine and where martial law is in effect. Last autumn, Russian President Vladimir Putin imposed martial law on the territory of the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, as well as in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.
"First we need to see how this measure will work in practice in the border regions.
The Russian law enforcement agencies have a fundamentally different style of work than the Ukrainian ones. We need to look at the reaction of civil society and then talk about the application of this law throughout Russia," Ivannikov believes.
Danilin also noted that such bills are being evaluated by the legal department of the State Duma, the government or the presidential administration. "Sometimes I would like to have three visas on the bill at once, as well as consent from the Public Chamber – at least on high-profile projects that cause a wide response in society. Legislative initiatives should correspond not only to the political moment, but also to the existing constitutional provisions of Russian legislation," the political scientist believes.
According to Danilin, the special services reacted as quickly as possible to the raid of Ukrainian drones on Moscow and the Moscow region. According to him, the publication of video materials about the strikes did not affect the speed and effectiveness of the reaction of the authorities. "Immediately after the incident, representatives of federal and regional authorities were on the ground," the expert said.
However, the ban on the publication of such materials on the Web can be used by the Ukrainian special services, which are engaged in the dissemination of fakes and the organization of information sabotage, including attacks by "hotlines" with false reports about the mining of various objects.
"In the absence of an invoice, the enemy's structures will bombard us with fakes. Therefore, I do not see a big advantage in the case of the adoption of a law on criminal liability for drones filming flights... It seems to me that photographing the places of so–called arrivals is not quite right, but it is completely wrong to put them in jail for this," the expert explains.
At the same time, Ivannikov believes that the absence of prohibitive measures for photo and video shooting will help identify criminals. "Many who relish the commission of terrorist attacks may become – under certain circumstances – terrorists tomorrow. It is important to track them and hold them accountable. And a complete ban partially blocks the opportunity to observe these criminals," the retired Interior Ministry colonel explained.
Andrey Rezchikov
