The initiative to raise the compulsory military service age to 50 for individuals who have obtained citizenship of the Russian Federation was withdrawn from consideration by the State Duma. This withdrawal is reflected in the public electronic records maintained by the parliamentary administration. The formal note attached to the document simply states that the bill has been withdrawn from further consideration, signaling an official stop to its progression through the legislative process at this stage.
The bill, introduced to the State Duma on February 1, proposed by deputies Alexander Borodai, Mikhail Sheremet, and Alexei Zhuravlev, aimed to amend the existing law governing military duty and service. The primary objective was to extend compulsory conscription to a specific group: men who had acquired Russian citizenship and who were within the age range of 18 to 50. The proposed change would have created an immediate obligation for conscription for this demographic, aligning it with the broader framework of conscription rules for citizens who fall under military duties, regardless of whether they were already registered for service or any existing reserve status at the time the bill would have taken effect.
Under current regulations, the state enforces compulsory military service for Russian male citizens aged 18 to 30 who are not in the reserve. Those individuals are subject to conscription as part of the national defense infrastructure, but the practical enforcement requires a formal registration process for military service. The proposed amendment would have altered this landscape by extending the scope of compulsory service to a significantly broader age range and to a particular subset of citizens who newly acquired citizenship, potentially expanding the pool of draftees and influencing the administrative handling of enlistment, scheduling, and reserve management. The discussion surrounding the proposal touched on how such changes might interact with existing exemptions, deferments, and the administrative capacity of the armed forces to absorb larger numbers of conscripts, as well as the potential societal and regional impacts of altering service age parameters.
During the period leading up to the withdrawal, several stakeholders offered commentary on the potential implications of the measure. The authors suggested that extending conscription to citizens who had recently acquired citizenship would create a bridge between citizenship status and immediate military obligation, raising questions about how citizenship transitions intersect with family, education, and civilian employment. Critics and supporters alike pointed to considerations about readiness, manpower planning, and the long-term sustainability of conscription in the face of demographic trends and evolving defense priorities. In the broader context, discussions of military service in the country are often tied to national security policy, veterans’ affairs, and the evolving role of conscription in a modern defense strategy, prompting a broader dialogue about how and when to mobilize human resources for national defense while maintaining social and economic stability.
Officials and analysts noted the need for deliberation on the practical and legal ramifications of any revision to conscription rules. The withdrawal of the bill indicates a pause in this particular policy direction, allowing time for consultations, impact assessments, and potential redrafting if lawmakers choose to reintroduce similar measures in the future. The sequence demonstrates the legislative process in action: a proposal is introduced, debated, and, when consensus or practical barriers emerge, a decision is made to withdraw or suspend proceedings to allow for further consideration. In the meantime, the status quo remains in effect, continuing to govern how conscription is administered for the current eligible populations under existing law, while parliamentarians and the public observe how the issue might evolve as part of ongoing defense policy discussions and legislative planning.