Latest News

Investigative journalist and editor of Agentura.Ru discusses the shrinking space for freedom of speech in Russia

In Russia today, Andrei Soldatov probably has amongst the most difficult of jobs. An independent, investigative journalist, and an editor of information hub, Agentura.Ru, Soldatov wields all the remaining power of the free media to his advantage, and is not about to give up his freedom of speech, regardless of charges brought against him in the past.

Soldatov accredits the shrinking media space in Russia at the moment to the smart moves of the Kremlin, who have instigated a sphere of fear that extends beyond the (uncertain) boundaries of law enforcement. “Twelve years ago, there were small steps forward through direct pressure put on media by the authorities and by services of certain government departments. Now it has become much more elusive and we should talk not only about censorship but also about self-censorship imposed by some authorities. And now we have a situation whereby the editors have become cautious, and that’s not to say anything about the owners of the media too.

“So it’s a specific and hard situation to be journalist because now if you are censored or fired you cannot blame the authorities. And it’s more sophisticated: there is much said about what is accepted and what is not accepted. But actually nobody knows what is and isn’t acceptable and everyone is forced to guess and it actually brings a lot of self-censorship as a result.”

This atmosphere of suspicion and uncertainty is now commonplace as Russian President Vladimir Putin and his aides have masterminded a near-complete media allegiance to the Duma. The latest developments in this continued onslaught have seen journalists who show creative independence or who dare to be critical of the state branded as traitors. As Kremlin-allied editors are now starting to be installed in publications to monitor their print output, it would appear that the internet is the last refuge of free speech – for the moment at least.

“When you have the printed media, you should have a headquarters and printing house, and these are facilities that might be raided by the authorities and it is something that has happened many times. When I got my book published in Russia, for example, the printing house was immediately raided – not the publisher. And there were some strange questions about who paid for the book. So the problem is when you have this strange printing facility, it actually provokes the authority to go in and ask questions, to ask for financial documents, etc. When you are on the online media, you actually might not have any office and also money is less of a crucial thing. You support yourself for periods of time on nothing. It’s not a good thing, but it is an option whereas in the printed media it is impossible.”

Even by being active on the online sphere then, journalists risk a great amount, from prosecution to poverty. In June 2008, for example, Soldatov was questioned once again by the Russian internal security agency, the FSB, over his interview with former foreign intelligence agency (SVR) officer Sergei Tretyakov, who defected to the United States in 2000.

Despite such risks, the public uptake of these alternative media of information is slow, in spite of the widespread recognition of the media propaganda. Approximately only 25% of the Russian population actively seek out independent sources of news online, and instead drink the Kremlin kool-aid distributed in national papers and news channels.

“People use the internet not to get information but to solve personal problems, like to find a shop, so it is not about information and that is a problem. I think it reflects the general society. The middle class are not very interested in getting political information,” laments Soldatov.  

Apathetic responses do not prevent Soldatov from further pushing the boundaries of his journalistic liberties. In November 2002, the FSB brought criminal charges against him and weekly newspaper Versiya for revealing state secrets after Soldatov published an article questioning the FSB version of the storming of the Nord-Ost Theater, which had been seized by Chechen terrorists in October 2002. More recently, he worked in partnership with The Guardian, UK, to expose the depth of surveillance infringements in Russia’s preparation for the Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

Whilst in the event, his discovery was largely eclipsed by global boycott as a result of LGBT issues, there is no doubt that the unequivocal level of snooping has become an accepted standard. “In the early 2000s, the middle classes gave up a number of their freedoms to the authorities in turn to get some assurances from the authorities to get social guarantees and they got it,” Soldatov explains.

“We are in an interesting situation, because on the one hand companies make sure that all the communications are completely transparent for the authorities. Completely. There is no way to defend yourself. On the other hand, until this month, most of the online population throughout Russia, even activists, were not ready to talk about privacy issues at all and there is no debate about privacy in Russian society. And that is a very tricky thing. We tried to write about it for two years and we saw that it is impossible to explain to people why it is important.

“The problem was that the Russian civil society is so scared by the idea of a terrorist attack that they were actually keen to trade off their privacy for the ghost of security. Activists have become ever so slightly more involved and proactive in these last months now because we are in the situation where independent websites are blocked almost immediately and there is no court decision. As a consequence, only now this month have we had some first wave of debate about what to do, what tools to use, what to do about privacy, how to try to protect your email conversations.”

Now the scale of privacy invasion is taking on new and concerning dimensions, with suggestion that in addition to security cameras, every bus in Russia should be installed with microphones to record conversations on public transport. Every aspect of the public conscience would be consumed and available for analysis.

Yet there is a sense that giving up certain civil liberties is ultimately for the greater good of the state and the population at large, and with the much-believed alternative being a bloody, difficult and protracted series of revolutions, many are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.

“It’s not just about backwards people in backwards regions. It’s not a correct picture. It’s much more complicated, particularly in the middle classes because they have children and are politically naive. They believe what the best things is to try and assure security by their own means and all means. This is quite a scary thing. They are ready for anything, ready for fingerprinting, ready for being pictured.”

Unfortunately, whilst the media is promoting a unilateral view in support of such policies, there lacks cohesive argument from the population in any bid to prevent such action. Without a recognized course of action, people are unable to galvanize change: “We see a mixture of feelings of grievance against the West, murmurs of a glorious Soviet past, sometimes they are inspired by strange ideas and columns in Russian papers about how Russia used to be a great world power, but I don’t see that it is really developed as a cohesive ideology. Mostly people are concerned with their own interests, very close things, the immediate neighborhood and maybe town. But mostly it is about their street and children and how to secure everything there.”

The short-sightedness is something that continues to threaten Russian Civil Society. As the old saying goes, if you don’t speak up when others are attacked, soon there will be no one left to defend you: by neutralizing the threat of the media, there is little open persuasive rhetoric through which to promote change. Ultimately, when probing too far, questioning too much or speaking against the norm, you face the threat of losing your job, at a minimum, as happened to Soldatov when he was fired from internationally acclaimed, independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta – ostensibly because of paper-wide job cuts, but allegedly due to political censorship. 

However, Soldatov remains positive in his approach: “The existence of civil society proves there are people in Russia who believe that they can do something and be citizens.”

Until that goal is realized, Soldatov will keep publishing articles by any means possible, detailing the extent of Russian censorship and crimes against the right of free speech.

Andrei Soldatov was a participant at Session 531, "Russian Civil Society Symposium: Building Bridges to the Future", sponsored by the Yeltsin Foundation. For more information and interviews with other participants, please visit the session page: www.salzburgglobal.org/go/531