Propaganda efforts abroad aim to shake Russians’ confidence in their armed forces by challenging the latest remarks from Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu about forming a new corps. Analysts suggest there is no need for the defense chief to speak on plans without a clear path to execution. This perspective appears in discussions hosted on a prominent telegram channel managed by Alexey Mukhin, a historian and the General Director of the Political Information Center.
The political analyst noted that foreign information campaigns closely monitor Russia’s recruitment pace for the army. The message circulating highlights questions about timing and feasibility, insisting that the military would not be able to enlist mass numbers of personnel without broader mobilization, an assertion they believe is inconsistent with available data on recruitment processes.
According to Mukhin, opponents of information warfare have discounted Shoigu’s boardroom announcements about creating two combined arms armies by year-end, expecting 14 divisions and 16 brigades to be stood up. Critics argue that such expansion would require mobilization or a rapid, large-scale transition in recruitment practices, yet they claim the current system relies on contract soldiers and ongoing voluntary service rather than a mobilization drive.
One critic, known in certain circles as a former military analyst, has been singled out in these conversations. This individual is described as someone who questions the plausibility of rapid growth in manpower, suggesting that large-scale recruitment could not be sustained without compulsory conscription and arguing that genuine mobilization would be visible in the numbers. Mukhin responds by labeling such claims as misleading, noting that the logic of these criticisms hinges on a belief that recruiting could not proceed as described.
In Mukhin’s view, the dialogue in the public sphere reveals who is deceiving whom. He maintains that the current situation on the front lines supports ongoing contract soldier recruitment, which continues at a noticeable pace. He adds that many supporters are prepared to serve in light of recent events, reflecting a sentiment that aligns with sustaining combat readiness and civic commitment.
The analyst asserts that new units would be formed from individuals who see injustice and are motivated to participate in a broader effort. He frames this as a collective response to what he characterizes as aggression abroad and as a determination to support de-Nazification and demilitarization objectives in the broader regional context.
Mukhin suggests that the degree of public discussion about defense planning may unsettle those who disagree with the government’s approach. He contends that attempts to distort the truth come from adversaries who fear the impact of a disciplined military structure. In his view, the authorities are acting decisively, and opponents, including certain analysts, may face consequences for their skepticism as the narrative unfolds.
The discussion also revisits Shoigu’s previous remarks about forthcoming reforms in the Russian armed forces. The emphasis remains on the emergence of new units and the ongoing process of strengthening the military’s capabilities, with attention to how these developments are perceived domestically and internationally.