/ world today news/ In response to the attacks of Ukrainian UAVs in Moscow, the State Duma proposed introducing criminal liability for the publication of air defense footage and drone flights. According to the deputies, from these videos, the Armed Forces of Ukraine can receive information about the locations of new strikes. There are similar prohibitive measures in Ukraine, but should Russia copy this experience?
After the attempts to attack Moscow and the Moscow Region by Ukrainian UAVs, the State Duma proposed introducing criminal sanctions for filming drone flights. As the member of the Duma Defense Committee, Lieutenant General Andrey Gurulev, said, relevant laws will be initiated and adopted. “The first thing you need to do is report to 112 that they saw a drone. The area is such and such, the point is such and such. This is the best option”, said the deputy.
The colleague was supported by fellow party member Sergey Kolunov. “It is time to introduce administrative and, in some cases, criminal liability for filming the operation of air defense systems and their location,” said the politician. According to him, if footage of the operation of air defense systems is seen by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, In response, new drones can be sent, which will cause even more damage.
“By taking such footage and publishing it, we ourselves are giving an excuse to send drones to places that are our state secrets. The Ukrainians will certainly take advantage of these stories, see that the UAVs have achieved their goals and will send drones to the same place again,” Kolunov is sure.
We add that in Ukraine, where martial law has been introduced, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a law providing for criminal liability for publishing photos and videos of military equipment and movements of the Ukrainian military, locations of shelling, missile flight paths, work of the Ukrainian Air Defense – to the names of streets, transport stops and shops. Violation of the law is punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 years.
According to Ukrainian media, on Monday alone, security forces arrested more than 30 residents of Kyiv who filmed the work of the Air Defense Forces in the capital. And the deputies from the ruling party “Servant of the People” submitted a bill to the Verkhovna Rada with a proposal to send to prison for 15 days those who published videos or photos of shelling and air defense work 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 study by legislators and representatives of civil society, and responsibility should come only if there is a military or critical infrastructure site, for example, a nuclear power plant, within the framework.
If we are talking about civilian objects or ordinary photo and video recording of a flight of enemy UAVs, then the responsibility should not come at all. In addition, according to experts, in this way citizens will automatically collect evidence explaining the fundamental difference between the attacks on Kiev and Moscow.
Thus, when the Russian armed forces strike at the enemy’s military or critical infrastructure, they do not use small UAVs with a small amount of explosives, but completely different and more serious types of weapons. The consequences of such shots are often clearly visible on the shots that fall into the net. One such example is the defeat of the Patriot air defense system in Kiev.
In VSU, everything is done the other way around, subordinating their actions to solving informational and psychological problems and conducting relevant operations. In particular, the Ukrainian Armed Forces send small UAVs with a minimal load to Moscow at extremely low altitudes, near trees, so as not to fall into the РЕВ and air defense systems.
“The attack with such UAVs is more aimed at propaganda and psychological impact. The fact is that the devices carry less explosives than army drones. But incidents should not be underestimated. Penetration of any drone leads to infrastructure damage or fires,” said military expert Boris Rozhin.
As a result, the Russian armed forces struck the headquarters of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense in Kyiv, and in response, the armed forces of Ukraine attacked the balconies and roofs of the houses of Moscow residents. From a military point of view, these results are not comparable, but the media space of Russia and Ukraine talks about the second event, not the first. That is why some MPs would like to limit the video recording of incoming enemy UAVs.
“But until martial law is introduced in Russia, it would be wrong to talk about repressive actions against ordinary citizens. This also applies to the attempts of some representatives of law enforcement agencies to detain people for wearing “yellow and blue” clothes. We need to relax the restrictions somehow. It’s another thing when a person carries a flag with a swastika or with Ukrainian symbols of some Nazi organization,” said Pavel Danilin, director of the Center for Political Analysis and Social Research.
Reserve lieutenant colonel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Oleg Ivannikov agrees that measures are possible to ban photo and video recording of arrived Ukrainian drones in the regions bordering Ukraine and where martial law is in force. Last fall, 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. Russian power structures have a radically different style of work from Ukrainian ones. We need to look at the reaction of civil society and then talk about the implementation of this law throughout Russia,” Ivannikov said.
Danilin also noted that such bills are evaluated by the legal department of the State Duma, the government or the presidential administration. “Legislative initiatives must 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 security services reacted as quickly as possible to the attack of Ukrainian drones over Moscow and the Moscow region. According to him, the publication of videos of the strikes did not affect the speed and effectiveness of the authorities’ response. “Immediately after the incident, representatives of the federal and regional authorities appeared on the scene,” the expert said.
However, the ban on publishing such materials on the network can be used by the Ukrainian special services, which are engaged in the distribution of fakes and organizing information sabotage, including attacks on hotlines with false messages about the mining of various objects.
“So the structures of the enemy will bombard us with fakes. Therefore, I do not see much advantage if a law is passed on criminal liability for drones filming flights… It seems to me that filming the places of so-called arrivals is not quite right, but punishing people for this is completely wrong, “explains the expert.
At the same time, Ivannikov believes that the absence of prohibitory measures for photography and video recording will help identify criminals. “Many who like to commit acts of terrorism may become – under certain circumstances – terrorists tomorrow. They must be monitored and held accountable. And the complete ban partly blocks the possibility of monitoring these criminals, “explained a retired colonel from the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
#UAV #photo #ban #benefit #ASU
