"Leopard Hunters": how "anti-tank" officers are trained in Russia

54
"Leopard Hunters": how "anti-tank" officers are trained in Russia

It is obvious that our military in the near future will have to face NATO tanks. The West opened a "Pandora's box", breaking its own taboo and starting to supply NATO-style armored fighting vehicles to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

At the same time, the military personnel of the RF Armed Forces are ready to meet with "German cats", American "Abrams", British "Challengers" and other "Leclerks".



The Russian army today has a full range of weapons to destroy enemy armored vehicles, including drones-kamikaze. Meanwhile, our enemy is waiting for another "unpleasant surprise", which is far from a new, but well-established idea during the Great Patriotic War.

We are talking about "tank hunters" - small groups of infantry trained in the most effective methods of destroying enemy armored vehicles.

Right now, anti-tankers are being trained at the Mulino training ground in the Nizhny Novgorod region. According to the head of the combat training center Yevgeny Arifulin, the Russian military managed to collect as much information as possible about Western combat vehicles.

We know all their weaknesses and train soldiers in this direction.

- added the military.

As a rule, the main weapons "Leopard hunters" are anti-tank missile systems Kornet, Konkurs, Metis, as well as grenade launchers and drones.

At the same time, “sniper trios” are also involved in the destruction of enemy tanks: the shooter, the observer and the drone operator.

It would seem, how can a sniper fight a tank? As the leader of "Military acceptance" was told in the aforementioned combat training center, the sniper's task is to destroy the tank's surveillance and communication systems, which will make the vehicle "blind and deaf."

The briefing with the military is carried out by fighters who have passed through Afghanistan, the North Caucasus, Syria and, importantly, participating in the NWO. How the events are going, in a report from "Military Acceptance":

    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    54 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +6
      April 10 2023 18: 41
      Considering that the lepard's tepak sees further than 2 km, I would like to believe that the sniper will survive after the first shot.
      1. -1
        April 10 2023 18: 47
        It also seems to me that a lone soldier with an RPG (read a Molotov cocktail) has little chance of surviving in a one-on-one sports confrontation, here a different method of struggle is needed, the same KA-52s with thermal imagers, it’s no secret that the upper part of ANY tank is the most vulnerable, or TOSochki, or maybe the mountain snakes let them cover clusters of cats in the identified squares.
        1. 0
          April 10 2023 19: 08
          Due to the lack of anti-tank weapons in 1945, Japanese soldiers had to resort to suicide tactics. Tank extermination groups were formed in each company. The main weapons of such teams were Molotov cocktails, bundles of hand grenades and long bamboo poles with mines attached to them. Such fighters hid in narrow single trenches in front at a distance of 100-200 meters from the main positions of the unit. During the offensive of Soviet armored vehicles, they tried to push a mine under the bottom of the tank with 3-meter poles. If this could not be done, they threw Molotov cocktails at the car.
          In the memoirs of the participants in the Manchurian operation, battles near the Chinese town of Mudanjiang stand out. Kamikaze, tied with bags of tol and grenades, formed mobile minefields and, hiding in dense thickets, rushed at Soviet tanks.
          1. +6
            April 10 2023 19: 40
            And how effective? There were also kamikazes with wooden boxes with explosives, if this was not enough, then they took out swords and rushed at the tanks (they wrote about this too) and this is against the most experienced warriors from the European fronts
        2. +5
          April 10 2023 19: 12
          Hmm .. Something tells me that hitting these tanks with cluster munitions with homing elements that hit the tank from above and using mines from remote mining systems looks more preferable, “shooting with instruments, no?
          1. +1
            April 11 2023 18: 22
            Quote: Monster_Fat
            Hmm .. Something tells me that hitting these tanks with cluster munitions with homing elements that hit the tank from above and using mines from remote mining systems looks more preferable, “shooting with instruments, no?

            Preferably, of course.
            But sweet gingerbread is always not enough for everyone.
            It's not about preparing these
            "sniper troikas" by ATGMs and forget about
            other means of destroying tanks?
            As I understand it, this is a mobile amplification of dangerous
            directions. hi
      2. KCA
        +4
        April 10 2023 20: 57
        Does a thermal imager for more than 2 km see a soldier with an anti-tank system sticking his head half a bump, or even lying with a triplex surveillance device in a trench?
        1. 0
          April 11 2023 16: 42
          Hmm ... It seems that some of our military leaders see the fight against modern tanks as it happened during the Second World War or, at best, in the 80s of the last century .... request
        2. +3
          April 12 2023 07: 47
          And the thermal imaging sight of Metis-2 and Kornet will not allow you to see the tank for 2 kilometers?
    2. -2
      April 10 2023 18: 45
      It seems to me that the onset of the Armed Forces of Ukraine can become a high point not at all for our Air Force, which, to put it mildly, screwed up, ZALA and Lancetov

      Lancet 3.0 with a tandem warhead of 5 kg is not much inferior to the Javelin with 7 kg. Plus, there are no blows to the forehead. In addition, there is no full-time dynamic protection on Leopards, which was published by Photoshop. VDZ needs to be set at the right angles and tested. Just stick on boxes without checking, this will get results in the form of burnt tanks

      If our Ka-52s near Kharkov showed rather the decline of the concept of attack helicopters. Several Buks of Ukrainians perfectly scared away the "Putin's falcons", but it's difficult with drones and even on electric air defense engines. Stinger and IRIS are not a player here.

      The lancet may not destroy the tank, but stop it. Since this is not in the rear, but on the battlefield, the tank will be finished off very quickly from antique bassoons or even simply thrown from mortars.

      The worst thing for the Armed Forces of Ukraine is if ZALA immobilizes the equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the passage through the pyramids of Surovikin. This is the closing of the mousetrap and the death of the attacking group by 100%
      1. +1
        April 10 2023 19: 16
        Quote: drone-expert
        with drones and also on electric motors


        It is more profitable to put conventional heat traps on drones with normal internal combustion engines. This is a well-known and proven method by aviation. In any case, since aviation flies a little, then there must be someone who will properly spend these traps, so why not drones.
        1. -3
          April 10 2023 19: 41
          You can put heat traps on drones. You can also put an electronic warfare squeaker like in Iskander's darts. This is an extremely primitive electronic warfare, which, when irradiated by the radar, responds with noise at its own frequency. The same squeaker is in Iskander himself. The noise is an order of magnitude higher than the EPR of Iskander, so by reflection you will not distinguish between a trap and a protected object. But there is a problem in that the anti-aircraft gunner can simply watch the speed of the targets.

          If you want to make a trap against Buk and IRIS out of the same Lancet, then you need the target to move at its speed and typical trajectory, so that the anti-aircraft gunner does not understand who is who by the nature of the movement.

          This means that jet aircraft are immediately eliminated. The drone cannot fly at her speed. Regarding helicopters, there is also a question, because. drones flying for a long time of an aircraft type without freezing like helicopters.

          In fact, such a trap can rather protect which Orion or Bayraktar or a drone made from An-2. The current concept of the Air Force is completely a failure here. We had rocket traps, but they are very expensive like a cruise missile and they spent the first week of NWO
          1. 0
            April 11 2023 07: 00
            Quote: drone-expert
            But there is a problem in that the anti-aircraft gunner can simply watch the speed of the targets.


            You know how to come up with something complex. Traps are needed only so that the drone gets to the air defense system intact - of course, it can launch a missile allotted by a trap for self-defense - but you need to get into the complex itself, in its part, where there are still many such unreleased missiles (having hit them all in bulk) and complex in the restoration of a variety of machines.
      2. +5
        April 10 2023 19: 27
        If our Ka-52s near Kharkov showed rather the decline of the concept of attack helicopters.


        Another combat helicopter roller was found. Nobody hides the fact that there were problems with tactics, but this does not in the least negate the combat effectiveness as such.

        but with drones and even on electric air defense engines it’s difficult. Stinger and IRIS are not a player here.


        Combat load Ka-52 2000 - 2800 kg, depending on the number of suspension points. For an electric drone and 10 kg, the ultimate dream. There is nothing to say about the combat radius, mobility of drones.
        As for MANPADS, they still need to get a helicopter, and this is far from easy.
        But there are more and more funds against drones every day.

        The lancet may not destroy the tank, but stop it. Since this is not in the rear, but on the battlefield, the tank will be finished off very quickly from antique bassoons or even simply thrown from mortars.


        A combat helicopter reaches a target with an ATGM without entering the MANPADS affected area.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. +2
                April 11 2023 19: 47
                Quote: drone-expert
                Manned aviation has outlived its usefulness, it simply does not pay off.

                ABOUT! Another detractor... fellow And I suppose, a pro ... with the Zhukovsky Academy, at least. Not?
                If you strain what is responsible for memory, then a picture is directly drawn from the past, when some strategists with a higher "furniture education" buried tanks, and at the same time artillery in 122 mm caliber ... and most importantly, with absolute confidence and solid argumentation on the fingers .
                Well, here it comes to turntables. Letunov, then you accuse of cowardice? And you yourself, dear man, in general, what are you like militarily? At what times did you swallow dust on marches and where did you breathe gunpowder on combat marches? What? Experience honed on the fields of "airsoft battles"? It’s a test, what really ... Maybe it got hooked on the pea filling, and then it came to a brain contusion?
                Purely in space ... because I see no other reason not to simply assume the fact that aviation, pilots were given a complete ban on the use of the entire spectrum of weapons and the skills that they demonstrated in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia ??? No, I understand that engaging in polemics with laboratory aphids is a useless exercise ... but I was very much hooked by the remark about the "cowardice" of the descendants of the "Stalin's Falcons" ... only a notorious scoundrel and a complete bastard feeding at .. .
              2. +1
                April 11 2023 20: 58
                And a lot of hits from 50 launches, grandfather?


                Imagine, young man, not a single miss. The assault is very accurate.

                Something is not thick in our evidence of the defeat of equipment from the Ka-52 regarding the Lancets.


                What, do you have any proof?

                Near Kharkov, more than 100 attack helicopters turned out to be just zilch. And this is not my opinion, this is Girkin's opinion based on the reviews of the infantry.


                Is Girkin's opinion on aviation worth something? lol
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
          2. KCA
            +2
            April 10 2023 21: 20
            Yes, you are special, LMUR 305, too, how should the "Attack" be kept in the beam? Or fired and forgot?
            1. -1
              April 11 2023 04: 12
              There is no LMUR, but in terms of AI it is much weaker than the Lancet, so there are almost no hits on vehicles. And the main thing is not even that. The Air Force wants high-precision missiles, but they are more expensive than drones, although kamikaze drones are simply superior in everything: range, warhead, intelligence and accuracy. Kamikaze does not need to be carried on board, it can perfectly fly itself next to the reconnaissance drone. It turns out that the purchase of guided missiles for the Air Force is simply economically and technologically unprofitable. This is the main reason for the death of the attack helicopter concept, it became unprofitable for him to buy ammunition. The lancet can be assembled from junk with Aliexpress, since it is from civilian components, its assembly volumes are almost unlimited. In the case of LMURs and even Whirlwinds, we have an extremely small output. All this is a funny show with NURS shooting from banal hunger at guided missiles.

              The only thing that can compete with drones is planning bombs due to tonnage and cheapness. But in general, the Su-34 doesn’t need to throw them either, if Sukhoi completed his Hunter drone, it would be great to throw such bombs, and the Hunter costs 3 times cheaper than the Su-34

              We have come to such a technological moment when the pilot is the main brake on the development of aviation. A person in a helicopter and an airplane is one of the main reasons for their low quality and high cost.

              The future is with drones.
              1. +2
                April 11 2023 18: 33
                Quote: drone-expert
                There is no LMUR, but in terms of AI it is much weaker than the Lancet, so there are almost no hits on vehicles.

                That's not why. There are stupidly a lot more lancets in the troops than LMUR.
                LMUR is not the Moscow Region at all, but the FSB ordered it for development. For myself.
                LMUR stacks entire buildings, which the Lancet can't do.
                1. The comment was deleted.
          3. 0
            April 12 2023 13: 35
            doesn't the "vortex" illuminate the target with a laser? why keep it in sight manually?
    3. -1
      April 10 2023 18: 46
      Una cortesia usando questo metodo, il mio commento vi appare tradotto in russo o ancora in italiano?
      1. +1
        April 10 2023 18: 56
        Answering your question - text in Italian. Yes
        1. -1
          April 10 2023 19: 13
          Grazie per avermi risposto, provero' un altro metodo, anche se non sono molto pratico in informatica.
      2. 0
        April 10 2023 19: 06
        Quote from: Semovente7534
        Una cortesia usando questo metodo, il mio commento vi appare tradotto in russo o ancora in italiano?

        Courtesy, using this method, is my comment translated into Russian or is it Italian?
    4. +6
      April 10 2023 18: 47
      And I, an idiot, thought that we were preparing all the time for a war with NATO tanks. And if, when attacking leopards, these hunters are not nearby? What then should our military do?
      1. +2
        April 10 2023 19: 39
        And I, an idiot, thought that we were preparing all the time for a war with NATO tanks. And if, when attacking leopards, these hunters are not nearby? What then should our military do?


        Here I don't know for sure. request In Soviet times, combat helicopters were intended as a highly mobile means of combating tank breakthroughs. However, our probable adversary too.
        The whole difference was that if in the West the main emphasis was on the so-called tactics of helicopter ambushes, then we looked at this matter sensibly, and therefore ATGM launches were carried out on the move, without loss of speed.
        But after the collapse of the USSR in the Russian Federation, they began to intensively copy the West, including tactics for which we now pay with helicopters and the lives of crews.
    5. +5
      April 10 2023 18: 47
      From what distance will the sniper "extinguish" the Leopard? Can someone tell me, since the anonymous author is shy.
      1. -5
        April 10 2023 18: 59
        Here the usual Soviet training manual is discussed and it is clear that the people from all-weapons simply did not serve in the motorized infantry, if this is news to them

        The standard instruction for a shooter from an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier is simply to "shave the tank's gauges." Actually, the unexpected effectiveness of Shilka in a battle with tanks in local wars is not connected with penetration of armor, but that Shilka will generally shave a tank from instruments in 10 seconds faster than an ensign shave a recruit

        Knocking out optics by snipers is also a common recommendation. For starters, it's pretty big. It's harder to hit a head than a lens the size of your laptop screen.

        Tanks usually avoid traveling across an open field, because. there they will be easily burned by ATGMs from a range of 5-10 km, even before the tank enters the firing position. Therefore, in NATO, tanks are recognized as obsolete weapons. The concept of the US Army as force design 2030 generally sends all Abrams in metal, because. Americans do not believe in their survival in duels with ATGMs. Against ATGMs, it’s a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, it doesn’t matter.

        Therefore, an experienced tanker, if he wants to live, tries to poke around for interference on the ground like houses or trees. This leads to the fact that many have seen on the video from the SVO more than once that the tank suddenly flies out on the infantry also diving from the artillery through the cracks

        In practice, the shooter is more likely to need not accuracy, but iron balls. The tank will often jump out at 50-100 meters at all due to some ruins. To get into the sight of a sniper here is generally below his skill level
        1. +7
          April 10 2023 19: 06
          You write nonsense, 10 seconds is a very long time, you need to keep within 2, otherwise a skiff. The rest is also bullshit.
          1. -4
            April 10 2023 19: 26
            Yes, of course)) Lamers are unaware that a tank shoots from a cannon on the go for sure only in advertising booklets or commercials with beer on the barrel. In reality, this is achievable with active suspension, as in Armata, but these are still all experiments. A tank, when moving at a decent speed, will be more likely to shoot in your direction, but the accuracy drops by an order of magnitude compared to shooting from a place. Therefore, in the SVO, you see in the video the typical tactics of a tanker from the time of the T-34, when a short stop is made before the shot.

            In the case of Shilka, she gives coverage to the sector and it’s a common thing to shoot there just in motion. Plus, tracers are easy to adjust shooting. Therefore, if the tank shoots more towards Shilka, then Shilka at the tank. Plus, anti-aircraft artillery usually has a target range of 5 km, and a tank usually has 1-2 km. You can practically wet a tank with impunity even for a few minutes from an anti-aircraft gun.

            Actually, the concept of a shahid mobile with a ZU-32 is based on the same. With an anti-aircraft gun, you will win a duel against a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle with a probability of at least 70%

            If Shilka did not cost as much as 2 tanks, then the tanks would have been thrown away long ago. Anti-aircraft guns are simply much more expensive than howitzers or tank guns. But if you already have it, then if I were the guys at Bradley and Leopards, I would have already written a will. Like their support infantry. Shilka mows down infantry in the field in general like a lawn mower. This is nailing with a microscope, but no one has been against an anti-aircraft gunner since World War II.
            1. -1
              April 11 2023 05: 36
              you call Terminators Shilka?
              1. 0
                April 11 2023 11: 44
                Quote: Just Passing By
                you call Terminators Shilka?

                Shilka is now in service with the Marine Corps of the Pacific Fleet, not long ago there was a TV story where these same Shilka worked, you can search the net. There are a lot of videos there.
        2. +7
          April 10 2023 19: 42
          It is discussed how to put it mildly in an article about “combat fantasy”, where they try to pass off need as virtue. "Standard instruction for a shooter ..." may work in isolated cases, but as a system it does not. Modern means of detection and situational awareness of the enemy have stepped far forward since the writing of such instructions. Why sacrifice brave people when there is an ATGM?
        3. 0
          April 11 2023 14: 04
          Plus, anti-aircraft artillery usually has a target range of 5 km, and a tank usually has 1-2 km. You can practically wet a tank with impunity even for a few minutes from an anti-aircraft gun.
          If Shilka did not cost as much as 2 tanks, then the tanks would have been thrown away long ago. Anti-aircraft guns are simply much more expensive than howitzers or tank guns. But if you already have it, then if I were the guys at Bradley and Leopards, I would have already written a will. Like their support infantry. Shilka mows down infantry in the field in general like a lawn mower. This is nailing with a microscope, but no one has been against an anti-aircraft gunner since World War II.

          At VO, professional selection should be carried out for such "experts"
          The concept of the US Army as force design 2030 generally sends all Abrams in metal, because. Americans do not believe in their survival in duels with ATGMs. Against ATGMs, it’s a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, it doesn’t matter.

          Force Design 2030 - restructuring program ILC USA. In favor of mobility and efficiency. Nobody refuses tanks in the army.
      2. 0
        April 11 2023 12: 02
        Quote: Marine engineer
        From what distance will the sniper "extinguish" the Leopard? Can someone tell me, since the anonymous author is shy.

        Ideally, 400-600 meters, from such a distance no one will see a sniper, as for thermal imagers, anti-thermal imager masks, in our region, they have been sewing since the beginning of the NWO, some kind of private trader, set up production, the plot was on local TV, with a demonstration possibilities, it really works. Yes, and the "TVs" of Western tanks, in front of them, are not weak. For SVD, of course, a difficult task, but for new rifles it is quite real.
        But you need to understand that this is one of the options for fighting tanks, and not even the first or second.
    6. +3
      April 10 2023 18: 54
      Good luck to our fighters! Patience and coldness. Let them take care of themselves.
    7. +3
      April 10 2023 18: 55
      Judging by the fact that not a single new tank was hit, our aviation does not work at all on the territory of Ukraine. It's not possible to just take these tanks and hide them
    8. +2
      April 10 2023 19: 01
      It seems to me that this is the case when it is not necessary to argue from the couch. Let's wait for the real use of "cats" and other "monsters", and then we will declare the correct tactics of our aircraft or not. Practice does not always match theory.
      1. -2
        April 10 2023 19: 32
        You say practice? But we have a treasure trove of experience. Just read the tactics and strategy of the Soviet army during the Battle of Kursk. , electronic warfare, guided weapons. But so on any action of the enemy, you need to use it in your favor.
    9. +1
      April 10 2023 19: 19
      "Leopard Hunters": how "anti-tank" officers are trained in Russia
      . There are no tanks that are not gouged by well-trained and equipped infantry!
      INFANTRY, QUEEN OF THE FIELDS, COTTAGES and CITIES, ess but!
      I don’t write about the forest, the tankers won’t climb there, they’re not suicidal ... and there aren’t forests there, such that wow.
      1. +1
        April 10 2023 19: 34
        You don’t follow the news, you hear about the forest near Kremennaya, where heavy battles are taking place and until we cleared it. The forest massif is very difficult to take, especially with well-prepared defenses. What we are seeing now.
        1. 0
          April 10 2023 19: 39
          So tankers don’t go there, by and large ... infantry, and, well, support means that can be used there.
    10. -1
      April 10 2023 19: 43
      The question is how did this BT appear in Ukraine ?? it’s easier to burn a hornet’s nest and not catch wasps one by one. All the logistics in the Western region are intact and how many deaths all these abrams / leopards will bring. And where is the formidable concussion of the air of the GDP, let them try to intervene in the conflict. They intervened specifically, but they simply wiped themselves in the Kremlin. But snipers are being prepared to defeat the BT. Let's revive the dashing cavalry attacks ??
    11. +8
      April 10 2023 19: 48
      Here the guy in the comments at one time was brave that he would kill the Armata in five seconds from the SVD from any distance, it is necessary to urgently "calculate this terminator by IP", explain to him that now he will chop up leopards.
    12. +2
      April 10 2023 19: 51
      It looks like another publicity stunt..
      1. -3
        April 10 2023 20: 18
        What PR? Just an article in the local newspaper about how to fight against tanks. However, special attention has been paid to this. And you need to fight against tanks with everything that is at hand and to which some kind of harm can be done.
    13. 0
      April 10 2023 20: 06
      It is still more efficient to buy the newest models of Western tanks from the Armed Forces of Ukraine and examine them at the research institute.
    14. +1
      April 10 2023 20: 30
      Pandora's Box...
      It doesn't matter who opened the box.
      More personal opinion...
      Until May-June, the Damned West watched the NWO pass. Then he began to supply Ukraine with "non-lethal" weapons. I am not a personnel, therefore I do not understand how a weapon can be non-lethal.
      But in the summer I watched tank biathlon competitions. There were thoughts that if here, where special barriers are made, where the most trained crews were sent from other countries, then we have CMS here, well, maybe MS. And all the MSMK, ZMS, champions and prize-winners smash to pieces those who still resist in the NWO from Ukraine ...
      And now it's April 23rd. And SVO continues.
    15. +2
      April 11 2023 04: 53
      I want to swear, but it's no use. What a pancake group of tank destroyers when all these tanks should destroy our VKS ... For example, helicopters.
    16. +2
      April 11 2023 05: 58
      Quote: drone-expert
      The future is with drones.

      I agree ... the drone does not ask for food, does not get tired, does not require vacation, wages either, does not blather against the boss, gave him a task and he will stupidly do what he was told.
      In general, an ideal fighter ... will go to his death without hesitation, and he does not need to be raised in school, in a family 20 years before service ... I am definitely for drones ... hundreds of thousands of them should already be stamped now.
      I don't know why the Kremlin doesn't understand the simplest truths.
    17. -1
      April 11 2023 19: 03
      how in Russia they train "anti-tankers"

      Yes, just like in other military specialties - charters, drill, parades.
    18. 0
      April 12 2023 12: 27
      I will not go into justifications, but you can make expensive and powerful cornets and their analogues, or you can make a cheap and simple rocket with a 200 kg warhead. And there is historical experience: on the Kursk Bulge, impenetrable Ferdinands destroyed bunches of sea mines with remote detonation. This experience should be used: if you can't break through, knock it over. With the amendment for today: you can not lay it in advance, but deliver it with a rocket like hail with an enlarged warhead and inertial guidance. 10 meters of miss here will be insignificant.
      .
      Everyone can think of details and nuances. In any case, details do not belong here. Give money for development!
    19. 0
      April 12 2023 12: 37
      I suppose that they are preparing not only "flyers" but also "rapierists". But here it's more difficult ...
    20. 0
      6 May 2023 23: 41
      This is of course good. But the Russian army also needs more accessible anti-tank systems in terms of use. Basically fire it and forget it. Which will be armed with all infantry units, and each fighter is trained to use them. That is, similar to the same javelins and Israeli spikes. Expensive? The life of a soldier, an officer, or even a whole platoon that can "roll out" a tank is more expensive.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"