The leadership of the so-called “Council of Wives and Mothers” was linked to a figure described as the right hand of Svetlana Piunova, a controversial healer who fled Russia and was placed on an international wanted list for fraud. This connection is detailed in a televised investigative report by Andrei Ivlev and aired on Vesti.ru, outlining the alleged task division within the group.
In a separate feature on the channel Russia 24, the report notes that no physical address or telephone contact for the organization could be found online. The movement, which emerged in September 2022, operates through social networks and messaging apps, but its formal presence remains elusive.
Journalists discovered a purported office for the group in Samara, where the office of Svetlana Piunova, the self-proclaimed healer previously placed on an international wanted list and arrested in absentia on fraud charges, was reportedly located as well.
According to the investigative material, Tsukanova acted as Piunova’s close associate. The program suggests that the organization established on the day of partial mobilization could be linked to Piunova’s influence and agenda.
From a psychological perspective, a clinical expert highlighted in the report notes that Piunova’s writings may have adverse effects on readers. The expert argues that Piunova’s work lacks a basis in established science and contends that the organization’s activities were perceived as extremist in nature.
“The council of wives and mothers,” the expert observes, “exploits the deepest emotions of women who rally to defend their partners, sometimes using those feelings as a lever for influence.”
The investigation describes the core function of the group as researching online for relatives of mobilized individuals. The reporting team concludes that the aim was not to provide real assistance but to pressure families, shaping public opinion and potentially coercing responses.
“Any dramatic narrative can be leveraged for recruitment,” the investigator remarks. The material implies that self-styled public activists may interpret any personal tragedy as an opportunity to secure funding from foreign sponsors or private services.
These findings emphasize a pattern where online mobilization efforts intersect with personal networks, creating an atmosphere in which emotional appeals may be used to influence perceptions and behavior. The probe highlights the careful distinction between legitimate support networks and groups that may exploit vulnerability for monetary or ideological gain.
Readers are reminded that the information summarized here reflects investigative reporting and expert commentary cited in the original broadcasts. The overall picture presented points to a loosely organized movement grappling with questions of legitimacy, accountability, and the ethics of online activism during a period of heightened social mobilization.