In a court in Novosibirsk, a military tribunal handed a verdict that altered the trajectory of a young man’s life. Vladimir Konstantinov, a 25-year-old mobilized serviceman, was found guilty of desertion before he could be sent to the zone of special military operations. The case was reported by Kommersant, a major Russian newspaper known for its coverage of defense and security matters.
Konstantinov had been mobilized on December 29 and, shortly after, managed to escape from his camp and meet with his mother. He then appeared before an inspector a week later and admitted his guilt. He subsequently stated that he preferred the prospect of imprisonment to the prospect of front-line service, a sentiment he conveyed during his testimony. This admission formed the central thread of the defense’s argument and influenced the court’s sentencing decision.
The charges against the Novosibirsk native fell under the article that covers Escape during the period of mobilization or in conditions of armed conflict. The maximum sentence for this offense can reach up to 15 years in prison, reflecting the severity with which desertion in a mobilization context is treated by Russian military law. In the proceedings, prosecutors had sought a five-and-a-half-year sentence in a strict regime penal colony. However, the defense contended that the circumstances warranted clemency or at least a suspended sentence. The court did not grant clemency entirely; instead, it imposed a five-year term in a penal colony, a decision that balanced punitive measures with the possibility of rehabilitation and deterrence within the military justice framework.
The case highlights several ongoing tensions in Russia’s mobilization environment. The pressure to fulfill call-up obligations intersects with personal risk and welfare concerns voiced by conscripts and their families. It also underscores how the military justice system handles acts of desertion when the individual seeks to avoid combat exposure or front-line duties, a topic that often becomes a focal point in broader public and political discourse surrounding mobilization policies.
In a separate strand of public policy discussion, officials from the Ministry of Defense have clarified medical exemptions related to mobilization. A recent declaration indicated that diabetes and cardiovascular diseases will not be included on the list of conditions that automatically qualify a person for exemption from military service. The guidance emphasizes that the framework governing exemptions remains anchored in a combination of federal law and executive regulators, including the Federal Law No. 31 of 1997, Government Decree No. 852 of 2006, and Presidential Decree concerning partial mobilization. These elements collectively shape the criteria for medical exemptions during mobilization periods and in the broader armed forces structure. The stance reflects an ongoing effort to standardize medical eligibility and ensure consistency across regions in a highly sensitive mobilization context, while also addressing concerns about the management of service health and readiness.
Beyond the specifics of Konstantinov’s case, observers note that the legal landscape for mobilization-related offenses remains intricate, with penalties calibrated to deter desertion while allowing for consideration of individual circumstances. The outcome in Novosibirsk contributes to a wider national conversation about the balance between service obligations, personal safety, and the humane application of military discipline. For audiences following military justice in Russia, this case demonstrates how provincial courts interpret mobilization offenses and how public policy statements from defense authorities interact with court decisions in a dynamic security environment. Attribution: reported by Kommersant and sourced from official defense ministry communications.