Obstacles and dangers of the new mobilization law

Here questions arose related to important topics for the country and society.

A week later, on January 12, the Verkhovna Rada plans to vote in the first reading for a new Cabinet bill on mobilization. Already the first discussions on January 4 of the norms of this law by deputies with the invitation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny and the Minister of Defense Umerov at a meeting of the National Security Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine showed that the adoption of the law will be very difficult.

The main reason is that the new law overlaps several issues that are important for the country and society. This is, in particular,

* ensuring the opportunity to continue effective resistance to Russian aggression and ensure the survival of the state;

* the key request of society for social justice during mobilization;

* supporting the economic foundation for the functioning of the Defense Forces in the new year - especially in the face of interruptions in stable assistance from Western partners.

Given the importance of these issues, it was to be expected that the new law on mobilization would become a comprehensive and thoroughly prepared high-quality document by the Cabinet of Ministers. But, unfortunately, these expectations were not met. The fragmentation of the “raw” bill presented by the government led to two important things.

The first is that in the form in which the bill was sent to the Verkhovna Rada, it will not be voted on in the first reading next week. Because it is necessary to “finish” the proposed “raw materials” to a form suitable for voting.

And secondly , deputies and specialized military structures will need to do an extremely large amount of work before voting for the bill in the parliamentary hall. What they have already begun to do is at yesterday’s first discussion of the bill on mobilization at a meeting of the National Security Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

“There were very emotional discussions,” one of the people’s deputies said after the meeting, “both on disability standards [the proposed document contains a rule on the mobilization of persons with the third disability group] and on electronic agendas. We asked why this rule was introduced and why. For example, how an electronic summons will be served, how they see the creation of an electronic office. They already agree with some of our comments.”

According to NV’s interlocutor in the committee, Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny strongly disagreed with some of the proposed norms:

“He opposed the rule on recruiting prisoners and criminals into the army. He says: is the army for bad people? This is wrong. But he also said: I need people, the Russians have already called up 400 thousand and are preparing several hundred thousand more for June, up to 400 thousand. Who should I fight with? Either turn to the world and ask people there, or go fight if you don’t provide.”

Another interlocutor of the publication added that the committee was also attended by the Minister of Education and Science Oksen Lisovoy, the head of the National Police Ivan Vygovsky, and the Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers Oleg Nemchinov.

“They asked not to adopt the bill in this form, they asked for the mobilization of teachers and police officers. And when they were asked whether they supported the document, whether they voted at the Cabinet of Ministers, they said that yes, they say, there was no other way out, but they did not see the document,” notes the source.

An illustration of how complex issues will need to be resolved when finalizing the mobilization bill was information in the media about government officials discussing a proposal to release from service men who officially have high salaries and regularly pay taxes to the budget. “Public conversations on this topic are avoided, but even the first mentions of the initiative had the effect of exploding an information bomb,” noted the BBC Ukrainian Service.

On the very first day, when the initiative became known, a flurry of indignant comments arose on social networks. Current military personnel reacted especially sharply, many of whom went to the front as volunteers, giving up high salaries, positions or their own businesses.

Opponents say that the initiative discriminates on the basis of property, divides society into those who can “buy off” the army and those who cannot, and therefore lays the ground for great social discontent.

For its part, the authorities did not publicly offer compensation to military personnel to reduce the level of this dissatisfaction. This is a demonstration of the lack of an integrated approach to solving the main problems associated with mobilization. Although, as economists state, these compensators are actually on the surface.

For example, economist Boris Kushniruk emphasizes that the benefits for those who serve should already be clearly defined:

“First of all, whoever is actually a participant in hostilities (CBA) and is constantly at “zero”, and did not come with his superiors a hundred kilometers from there to fry and eat kebabs, or by agreement with the commanders, often with a corruption component, sits away forever from the real front line.

This is about

establishing state guarantees for UBI regarding social guarantees for them and members of their families, including medical care not only in state/municipal, but also in private medical institutions,

provision of cash certificates, which after the end of the war they will be able to use at their discretion to purchase real estate (land, residential buildings),

paying for children’s education in universities and private schools,

state compensation for the payment of interest on mortgage loans and for the purchase of a car every 7-10 years,

coverage of insurance payments when purchasing, including on credit, real estate and cars.

UBD should have government guarantees and subsidized interest on loans when opening and running their own business for the first 5-7 years.

UBD should have a clear priority when recruiting for service in law enforcement agencies and occupying positions there.

The system of state preferences should be an honest and transparent “carrot” for those who serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and are participants in hostilities.”