Major General Igor Konashenkov, the spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry, said in recent days he had received reports of fraudulent telephone calls targeting Russian men. In these calls, an answering machine allegedly urged the listener to report to the military commissariat. He warned that such calls were not legitimate and described them as provocations engineered by Ukrainian intelligence services. According to Konashenkov, the perpetrators exploited the voice of a machine to imitate official numbers, attempting to sow confusion and fear among reservists.
The general asserted that these deceptive calls originated from Ukrainian soil and stressed that the Defense Ministry does not initiate contact with citizens in reserve to summon them to the military commissariat. He reiterated the official position that there are no planned calls of this nature from Moscow or any other regional command, and urged the public to verify any information through official channels. In a related development, the Russian president signed new legislation on March 4 tightening penalties for misinformation about the armed forces and for anti war actions. The law aims to deter false reports and calls for sanctions, expanding the potential consequences for those who disseminate misleading information or incite hostility toward Russia. The measures authorize substantial fines and possible imprisonment, with penalties escalating if the false statements are linked to an official position or if they cause serious harm or disruption to national security or public order.
Under the new provisions, disseminating false information about the Russian armed forces can lead to fines ranging from 700,000 to 1.5 million rubles, or imprisonment for up to three years. When such information is conveyed under the banner of an official role or authority, penalties rise to fines between 3 and 5 million rubles or imprisonment lasting five to ten years. If the misinformation triggers significant consequences, the statute allows for extended terms of imprisonment from ten to fifteen years. These provisions reflect a broader effort to counteract false narratives that could undermine military readiness or erode public trust during sensitive periods.
Observers note that the law’s phrasing emphasizes responsibility for both individuals and organizational voices within the state apparatus, creating a framework to address harmful rhetoric without impeding legitimate discussion. The authorities emphasize that accurate information remains essential for civilian safety and national security, especially in times of heightened geopolitical sensitivity. For further context on how these measures are interpreted in practice, reference materials and official summaries are available through the regulatory publications and public information resources cited by the government in its broader communications strategy .