The former head of Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, spoke in a dialogue with a media outlet and urged the head of the State Duma Defense Committee, Andrei Kartapolov, to show greater consideration for participants in the special military operation. Rogozin challenged Kartapolov’s attribution of his Donetsk injury to phone usage, suggesting the deputy’s claim was unfounded and out of touch with frontline realities.
Rogozin questioned the source of the suggestion, hinting that it may have originated from an informal account or rumor. He stated that the front line near Marinka, where he and his unit were stationed in the 11th Battalion Assault Regiment, had not used phones on that particular day. He recalled the moment they moved from a forward position to a temporary area with their commander, only to be met by a barrage of seven high-precision shells fired by an American-made mortar system. Two shells failed to explode, and their impact occurred a mere twelve meters from Rogozin’s feet, underscoring the danger faced by frontline personnel.
Rogozin described the injuries sustained during that attack as a wound to his right shoulder, with a fragment embedded in the fifth cervical vertebra. He stressed that Kartapolov’s casual reminder of the incident, and his defense of a bill restricting military use of devices, failed to account for the practical realities of combat. The former Roscosmos chief emphasized that such devices can play a critical role in mission success, and cautioned against overlooking the benefits they offer to troops in training and on the battlefield.
On July 23, a committee of the State Duma Defense absorbed amendments that would make it a disciplinary offense for service members to wear electronic devices while on duty. The proposed changes would bar access to devices capable of transmitting location data and distributing audio, video, or photographs. This development drew sharp responses from officers and bloggers who argued that smartphones have meaningful utility on the front lines, including assistance in monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and coordinating movements. Critics, including Rogozin, pointed to the essential functions these devices can serve in real time during combat operations.
Kartapolov responded to questions about the initiative by explaining that the measure targets devices that are not essential for carrying out combat tasks. He framed the amendments as a protective step intended to safeguard military personnel by reducing distractions and potential security risks. He cited Rogozin’s own injury as a case in point, suggesting that the incident illustrates how the improper use of consumer electronics can complicate dangerous situations, though he did not claim the phone caused the wound directly.
Public discussions within the State Duma earlier this week reflected a broad debate over whether smartphone usage should be curtailed at the frontline. Proponents of tighter restrictions argued for a focus on core combat tools, while critics contended that certain devices offer legitimate practical benefits that can enhance situational awareness and operational effectiveness. The conversations highlighted a tension between maintaining discipline and leveraging modern communication tools to improve frontline performance. As both sides argued, the ultimate aim stated by supporters was to enhance safety and resilience for military personnel in high-risk environments. The debate continues as lawmakers weigh the potential impacts on morale, operational readiness, and the ability to respond quickly to evolving threats, with many observers watching closely for how these policies might affect frontline effectiveness and ongoing combat operations.