The expansion of the article on military fakes has alarmed human rights activists.

The criminal case under the article on military fakes for a publication about the "Five-Day War" demonstrates the expansion of this article's application to other conflicts in which the Russian army participated, potentially increasing the risks of its arbitrary interpretation. Moreover, the criminal code article itself is vaguely worded, human rights activists and lawyers pointed out.

As "Caucasian Knot" reported, Dozhd* journalist Valeria Kichigina was accused of disseminating fakes about the army. One of the publications she is accused of is about the events in Bucha, the second about the presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia after the "Five-Day War" of 2008. This is the first instance of the article on fake news being used for statements unrelated to the Central Military District, and it demonstrates the expansion of the article's scope to other conflicts involving Russian military personnel.

Human rights activist Oleg Orlov** believes that the charge against the Dozhd* journalist signifies an expansion of the application of the article on fake news about the army.

"The application of this article on fake news in the army extends beyond the immediate events of the in Ukraine. This criminal article, if you look closely, is formulated in such a way that it can be applied anywhere. For example, what does the phrase "outside the Russian Federation" refer to? Does it refer to the beginning of this phrase, "the use of armed forces outside the Russian Federation," or is it only to the second part, about the exercise of powers by Russian state bodies outside the Russian Federation. If we understand that "outside" refers only to Russian state bodies, then this means that it is quite possible to begin prosecuting everyone for any statements or publications addressed to the armed forces," he said.

The human rights activist does not rule out that in this form this article could be used to prosecute And for information about the brutal treatment of civilians during the first and second Chechen wars.

"This could be done retrospectively. For example, somewhere online, a 2001 article by journalist Anna Politkovskaya is still hanging around. A criminal case is being opened, of course, not against Anna Politkovskaya, but against those who still cite this article by Anna Politkovskaya. Against those who have Anna Politkovskaya's article on their website. In my opinion, this is possible," Orlov said.**

He believes that the security forces can interpret the article however they please.

"Lawyers can fight and prove otherwise." "They'll just start interpreting it any way they want, no problem," Orlov** pointed out.

Any opinion expressed about the army, even a neutral one, can be perceived as fake.

Svetlana Gannushkina, Chair of the Civic Assistance Committee**, also believes that virtually any statement about the army can be interpreted as fake.

"It's simply becoming so absurd that any opinion expressed about the army, even a neutral one, can be perceived as fake. Probably the same as the practice of applying the law on foreign agents. All these repressive articles are being expanded to completely unlimited limits. This speaks to the fear of the authorities, in my opinion. "Because when the authorities begin to fight everything, any opinion on any topic, no matter what is being said, it's as if they themselves are experiencing some kind of great discomfort," she told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

Lawyer Timofey Shirokov noted the ambiguity in the wording of the article on fake news and agreed that it could be interpreted broadly.

"This is a question of the 'execute, pardon' type. We need to understand. One could interpret this as referring to the use of armed forces abroad, or one could think that it refers only to executive authorities. In that case, any criticism of the Armed Forces could fall under the article on fake news," he told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

According to the lawyer, the article on fake news in the context of the SVO should not be applied to journalists at all.

"The article contains a definition of 'dissemination of knowingly false information.'" How can a journalist be prosecuted for disseminating knowingly false information? What are the criteria? They say there's a report from the press service or a General Staff spokesman—that's absolutely true information, but anything coming from other sources is knowingly false. "And how can you prove that the journalist knew in advance that the information was false?" Shirokov concluded.

* The Dozhd TV channel has been designated an undesirable organization and added to the register of foreign agents.

** are added to the register of foreign agents.

*** The activities of Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) are banned in Russia.