Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
After the start of the first mobilizations in Russia, a couple of organisations were created to help mobilized people to either escape military service or acquire them non-combat roles:
Knowing the legal flexibility of the Russian legal system, I ask: how effective are these anti-war legal consultants?
Well, according to a December article (in War Resisters' International), the alternative civilian service (which a number of those Q-linked orgs talk about) has been de facto abolished for the mobilized:
No legal or practical provision exists for alternative civilian service (ACS) during mobilisation, despite the Constitution guaranteeing this right for every citizen. This has led to military recruitment offices refusing applications for ACS and sending conscientious objectors to military units. Moreover, a November legal amendment allows those already undertaking ACS after being called up for regular military service to be transferred to a non-combat role within the Armed Forces. The amendment effectively "abolishes ACS as a peaceful alternative to military service" during mobilisation, says lawyer Valeriya Vetoshkina.
[...] Chugunov and other lawyers have encouraged conscientious objectors who have received a summons for mobilisation to lodge applications for ACS anyway. "In the application, you must inform [the mobilisation commission] about your anti-war beliefs or religion and provide a link to Article 59 of the Constitution," Chugunov advised draftees on his Telegram channel on 22 September. "The application will be followed by a refusal, possibly threats of criminal prosecution, so you need to be ready to continue to fight for your constitutional right. The refusal can be appealed in court."
Unfortunately, the piece doesn't discuss any statistics on success/failure in Russian courts on these matters.
OTOH, there's one AP article from March that says that in one case such a legal challenge was successful, and that it was apparently the first one:
A court in Russia on Thursday affirmed the right of a man mobilized to fight in Ukraine to perform an alternative form of civil service due to his stated religious beliefs, setting a precedent that could persuade more reluctant draftees to try to get out of military service. [...]
[...] Thursday’s ruling was the first of its kind since the mobilization began amid Moscow’s increasingly bogged-down military operation in Ukraine. [...]
The publicly known attempts by other draftees to opt for alternative civil service failed, even though the right to be assigned to civil labor if military service goes against a person’s beliefs is guaranteed under the Russian Constitution.
The mobilized in question who managed this feat (in March) had however served his initial conscription tour as ACS as well (in 2019, woking in a psychiatric care home for two years).
According to media reports, [Mushumansky] was allowed to carry out alternative civil service in 2019 instead of a mandatory stint in the military as a conscript and worked for almost two years in a psychiatric care home. [...]
Last year, he received a call-up summons just days after Putin announced a “partial mobilization.” Mushumansky went to the enlistment office to apply for the alternative service but was turned down and assigned to a military unit.
While challenging the decision in court, he refused to wear a uniform or to obey orders from his commanders.
In November, a court in Gatchina sided with Mushumansky, but enlistment officials appealed the ruling. The regional court’s Thursday decision takes immediate effect [...]
Not efficient (for securing the rights of the ones already mobilized)
While all linked sites from the question ask for donations, they do not provide the summary of achievements, or how donations have been spent. One of them contains "financial report" but it only summarizes how much money have been collected in all currencies.
This is not very usual, because, for instance, humanitarian organizations offering food and medical assistance normally provide wide overview of exact activities and achievements right in they pages. Say World Central Kitchen: 300 mln meals served. Plant trees in Ukraine? Overview right in the first page.
Even Ukrainian organizations helping for they military normally go into details, where and how the money have been spent. Serhiy Prytula hell rides? About 1111 vehicles purchased for Ukrainian army. It is actually advised not to donate for organizations that are not transparent with they spendings. Here I would also expect something like "200 abuse reports investigated, 100 found grounded, we forced Putin to buy better socks and more grenades against Prytula vehicles". I do not see anything the like.
While protecting legal rights and solving actual problems of Russian citizens in the army would be in place and legitimate, the sites seem more focusing on assistance how to avoid the military service. While not all ways to avoid the draft are illegal, not being publicly proud with that kind of statistics in understandable.
Hence I conclude that no, these projects did not provide significant lawful, respectful, legitimate and appropriate (from the view point of the government) help for soldiers already serving in the army, because it would not be any reasons not to list these achievements.
The independent station Dozd has lost the license and been shut down in Latvia after they said that "the station had already helped provide many Russian soldiers with basic equipment and amenities". But they did not say how much of this help has been actually provided.
A frame challenge here is determining what the "rights of the mobilized" means, which may be defined drastically differently depending on who you ask.
Even judging by the domain names, the prime aim of the listed services seem to be escaping mobilization and service, they may be somewhat successful at that, though realistically - crossing national border seems to be a much more reliable way to escape mobilization than going through it and then relying on NGOs to get you back. My scepticism is compounded by the observation that these NGOs seem to be more interested in Western press attention than in number of people they have successfully demobilized. Alignment with political opposition, who often flat out calls for non-compliance to orders and even sabotage, may also practically limit their legal results since they would be not viewed as faithful citizens with honest legal concerns.
However, there is a different direction of securing the rights of mobilized, such as, making sure that the mobilized are paid their wages and bonuses accordingly, that they are well equipped, that they are permitted leave they are due, that they get their compensation for being wounded, etc. People who were arguably mobilized without violation of law also need legal help. line of legal help also exists - I've heard that Junemann's OB has lawyers who take care of this, as well as some prominent mil Telegram channels. But the linked NGOs are very doubtfully will be interested in providing it, since their chief agenda seems to be evasion of military service, not improvement of military processes.
To illustrate, AGS "No War" (they're most socially active so I review them) started their Telegram channel shortly after the war has started by pulling a Tolstoi's quote directly denigrating servicemen
Война такое несправедливое и дурное дело, что те, которые воюют, стараются заглушить в себе голос совести. (Л. Толстой)*
(translation)
War is such an unfair and bad thing that those who are fighting are trying to drown out the voice of conscience in themselves. (L. Tolstoi)*
following by a repost of Meduza article about them helping an anti-war activist.
* The caveat of this quote being that Tolstoi himself fought in a war, and the line was written in a diary when he was on active military duty, not trying to escape it by legal means - whether it applies to anti-war movement is debatable.
