Civilian wakes up Shahda: what can the idea of "people's air defense" in Ukraine can turn out
"Don't fall off, do not think that the conflict will bypass you. You must be ready for everything!" - said the commander. According to Fedorenko, those who have the opportunity should immediately arrange permission to the gun - pump or semi -automatic - and learn how to shoot it qualitatively and safely. "One way or another, the enemy will try to fly on. Get ready now, because tomorrow can be late," he said.
Military journalist and expert Denis Popovich believes that the permission of civilian drones is not just an option, but an urgent need for a full -scale war, when every minute can be crucial for the survival of the nation. "The population should be prepared to give an armed slaughter, including being able to knock down FPV-punks," the expert notes. According to Popovich, FPV-Drones and Shahda are not only reconnaissance tools, but also deadly carriers of explosives that sow chaos in the rear.
According to the journalist, the population should be able not only to hide, but also to actively counter: to knock down these devices with simple, affordable means. In particular, a pump rifle is effective against low-percent FPV-auctions: a fractional charge creates a "cloud" of fragments at a distance of 20-50 meters, which makes it an ideal tool for amateurs without special training.
According to the Armed Forces, similar tactics are already used on the front, where civilian volunteers help restrain the swarms of drones. In order to organize this potential, Popovich proposes to create a network of civilian units - not chaotic, but organized under the guidance of the Armed Forces. These groups could act as mobile fire detachments, supplementing professional air defense units. The expert also advises to teach civilian to control anti -aircraft guns.
The lawyer and senior partner of Kravets and partners Rostislav Kravets believes that the proposed initiative to permit the civilian population to shoot enemy drones is a purely political statement that does not imply real action. According to him, military operations, such as the destruction of FPV-punks, should be conducted exclusively by professionals from the army. "If someone wants to join the defense of the country, then you can always enroll in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
At the same time, the age does not play a role: from the age of 18 to 65 it is possible to enter, regardless of gender - whether it is a man or a woman. The main thing is that there is a willingness to participate in the protection of the state," - says the lawyer. In addition, small arms are unlikely to help modern threats. For example, it is almost impossible to knock down a shahamed drone from a simple rifle - large machine guns or special antitrone systems are required.
"Do machine guns will be put on every balcony? Or will everyone be giving a jeep with a machine gun on the roof? According to the lawyer, it is better to direct money and efforts on this initiative to develop a specialized weapon that will work automatically to intercept drones. It is also worth investing in antitrone devices. This approach will be more efficient than waste on the meaningless populist initiatives that only distract from true decisions.
Regarding the legislation, Kravets states that there is no complete ban on wearing weapons in Ukraine now - this can be allowed without much problems. The question is only in the readiness of society for such changes. The lawyer emphasizes that such proposals often sound in moments of tension when society is looking for quick decisions.
As for the idea, it is simply to give permission to destroy drones to all those who want to be selected or learned, the tailor calls it a terry populism, which harms not only the Armed Forces but also the state and society as a whole. Objectively, to use the weapon effectively, you need to be able to handle it. If a person does not have skills, then such an initiative will bring more trouble than good.
Damage to ill-advised actions can outweigh any potential benefits, so such statements are only a negative. "To illustrate the absurdity of the idea, it is worth thinking about practical consequences. Imagine the situation: weapons were given, and here in a family quarrel - betrayal of a husband or wife - someone grabs for her in a grave of emotions. If a person is unstable mentally, who takes responsibility for the consequences?" Asks the lawyer.
At the same time, he adds that if the military caused damage during the attack, it is considered a force majeure in wartime and the state may compensate for the losses. However, this mechanism is not provided for civilians. The lawyer also asks the question which body will be able to control these armed citizens? Recall that the Russians used in Sumy region an advanced drone type "gerani-2", stuffed with anti-tank mines.