radiofree.asia

Category: Ukraine Invasion Features

  • ‘We expect anything’: A Russian union leader vows to keep helping journalists facing state repression

    As journalists flee Russia fearing prosecution for their coverage of the invasion of Ukraine or their affiliation with outlets deemed “foreign agents,” the country’s Journalists’ and Media Workers’ Union (JMWU) is trying to help them. A non-governmental trade union with some 600 active members, the group defends labor rights, provides assistance to journalists, and stands up for freedom of the press in Russia.   

    Founded after a 2016 attack on local and foreign journalists in Russia’s North Caucasus, the organization is filling a vacuum in Russia where officials “do not want or do not dare to touch upon unpleasant topics and protect injured journalists,” according to its website. (Another union, the Russian Union of Journalists, has often taken pro-Kremlin stances, recently asking Russia’s media regulator to take action against YouTube for what it called censorship of Russian media.)   

    On the first day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, February 24, the JMWU published a bold statement calling the war a “perfidious step” that would risk journalists’ lives and “lead to the death of many citizens of our countries and huge destruction.”

    CPJ spoke to co-chair of the union, Igor Yasin, about the group’s work to help Russian journalists in this precarious moment. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

    What do Russian journalists need most right now? And how are you helping them?

    Igor Yasin: We are in touch with many journalists, those who fled and are now abroad, in Istanbul, for example, and those who are still in Russia and are planning to go.

    The main need [for journalists who have fled or want to] is visa support but many are also looking for financial assistance. One of the biggest requests we receive from journalists and newsrooms is about digital security, about what to do during the searches of newsrooms, journalists’ apartments, or searches of their devices when they cross the border. They need trainings and consultations.

    But there are also journalists who don’t have plans to leave or cannot do so because they have elderly parents to take care of, or for other reasons. In Russia, there are many journalists who have become jobless, and are going to stay. It’ll be hard for them to find a new employment especially if they worked for media outlets labeled as “foreign agents” or “extremist.”

    The new legislation punishing the dissemination of “fake” information on the war with up to 15 years in prison has forced many journalists to flee in fear. How do you see that law, plus the ban on the use of words “war” and “invasion” to describe Russia’s actions in Ukraine, impacting Russian journalists and foreign correspondents?

    The problem with laws in Russia is that it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to predict how they will be applied. If in the past, we tried, along with media lawyers, to analyze, look at precedents, the legal practice, to understand how new laws would be implemented, now, it is impossible to speak about the future with any clarity.

    The laws have often been applied selectively and for the convenience of those in power. So, with these new laws we can’t really predict the scale of the impact of the new law [on “fake” information]. Will it target individual journalists and media outlets, or will there be a blanket use? I cannot tell.

    But what is clear is that many journalists decided to flee as soon as they heard about the law or soon after the law was adopted. Just like that – packed up a few items in a suitcase and took off. Journalists with dual citizenship fled – journalists whom I know personally. Some who are Russian citizens but worked with reputable foreign news agencies also fled.

    Are you planning to go too?

    I wouldn’t like [to leave Russia]. I continue working as before, even more than before, with the new flood of requests for help. We haven’t faced pressure yet — maybe because we are not the most important organization that bothers [the authorities], maybe they think we are too insignificant, maybe it’s just not our turn yet. But we expect anything at any moment.

    Your February 24 statement was very brave, but not unusual given your organization’s history of standing up for journalists. Are you going to be more careful from now on?

    You are right, we have always had this kind of position. But if you recall, when [the war] started, there were many similar statements. We were not the only ones to condemn [the war]. But everything developed so fast. In a matter of days, the [new law on “fakes”] was initiated, adopted, signed into law, and went into force.

    So, when the law on “fakes” [was adopted on March 4], we discussed internally whether we should take the statement down, but we decided against it. We just removed signatures under the statement to protect people who signed it.

    What else changed in your work since the beginning of the war?

    I now have to use a VPN [virtual private network] for everything and safe messaging apps for phone calls and messaging. I had to learn how to navigate to stay safe digitally.

    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Gulnoza Said/ Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator.

  • ‘Hard, emotional and painful’: Journalists in Ukraine on covering Russia’s invasion

    The shooting death of U.S. reporter Brent Renaud in Irpin, outside Kyiv, on Sunday, March 13, underscored the extraordinary dangers facing journalists covering Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    Renaud was the second journalist killed since Russia’s February 24 invasion; other reporters have been shot at, shelled, robbed, and detained by Russian forces as they cover the war and the ongoing humanitarian crisis it has caused.

    As the invasion continued into its third week, four journalists spoke with CPJ about the physical and emotional toll of covering the conflict.

    CPJ emailed the Russian defense ministry for comment about the military firing on journalists and emailed the Ukrainian military for comment about press access but received no responses.

    Antoine Boddaert, documentary filmmaker with France’s Hikari Media, reporting for European public service channel ARTE

    I’ve been working in the Lviv area. We made one little documentary about the information war between Russia and Ukraine. We wanted to show how Ukrainians are confronting Russian propaganda and how they cover the war. Our second documentary is about a small Ukrainian village of fewer than 200 inhabitants. [In other media] we have seen almost exclusively stories set in cities, and we wanted to show Ukrainian life in small villages and rural areas. We met almost exclusively women, children, and old men as the [other] men were mobilized [in the Ukrainian forces]. We met a family with nine children and the mother was home schooling them. My goal is to tell the story of the war through a different lens, to tell the stories that other journalists don’t because they are obsessed with being near the frontline.

    The main difficulty we confronted was that people suspected that we were spies, which is understandable in wartime. Building good relationships with our subjects wasn’t easy at first, but as they began to get comfortable with us, their testimonies were really precious. We also faced problems accessing certain areas from [Ukrainian] police, but once they saw our press cards, our passports, and our mission letters [from the news organization] they let us work. Military [press] accreditation is really difficult to obtain. I think it can help you a lot on the ground but it’s not essential – we were able to work without it. 

    Benas Gerdziunas, reporting for Lithuania’s National Radio and Television (LRT)

    [Covering this war] is a repeat of the experience I have had in the Donbas area [in eastern Ukraine controlled by Moscow-backed rebels] the last seven years — if you don’t have personal contacts, you get nothing. This time, after coordinating an embed with one [Ukrainian] military unit and spending two days waiting – during which we had two meetings, including with the commander, discussing all the possible ways of working together — they backtracked and refused to take us along. The military simply does not provide access. As you can probably see from the pictures in the media, most of the fighting has been captured as an “aftermath” story. Importantly, when access is denied, journalists take risks. Most of the teams I know have worked on a “Let’s go and see” basis. For me, in the last few years in Donbas, this has led to dangerous situations – I was fired upon more than once, including one time when our vehicle was almost hit by an anti-tank missile. At present, it seems that many media crews are forced to operate this way – arriving onsite, interviewing people, capturing the footage that they need, and leaving [rather than coordinating with the Ukrainian army].

    Oleksandr Ratushnyak, Ukrainian freelance photographer

    I work with Ukrainian and foreign media. I started working as a photographer covering the military during the Revolution of Dignity [the Maidan Revolution of 2014 when protesters ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych], and later I took photographs in eastern Ukraine. When the first explosions took place over Kyiv on February 24, I did not sleep. I realized what had started. Those first two weeks of real war, I had so many different internal reactions — panic, fear, danger, [the need for] security and protection, pain, anger, love. War exacerbates many feelings. So far, I have not faced any significant obstacles from the Ukrainian authorities in filming. With experience, you understand where you can take pictures and when you can’t, when to remove the camera and hide it. So far, my experience as a military photographer is limited to my country, which makes it twice as hard and painful. Surprisingly, some foreign correspondents sometimes behave too cynically [about the toll of the war]. During [my first two weeks of coverage], several shells flew nearby. Despite the fact that my colleagues and I were wearing clothing marked “PRESS,” once Russian troops fired at us near the destroyed bridge to Irpin [a city in northern Ukraine that has seen heavy Russian attacks]. I have a small scratch on my leg from a shell fragment and a hole in my pants. Civilians died at the same place.

    Adam Bihari, reporting for Hungarian news site HVG.hu

    This war has been totally unpredictable from the start. [After arriving in Kyiv on February 23] I was planning to go to the frontline [in eastern Ukraine] on the 24th, but instead, the frontline came to me. It is absolutely different from my experiences during the contained local war in the Donbas [between Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces in eastern Ukraine]. [Now] every corner could be the next frontline, there are barely any safe areas in Ukraine. I knew the sound of constant sirens from [covering] war in Israel, but I felt much, much less safe in Kyiv, without an Iron Dome [Israel’s missile defense system] and with one of the largest armies in the world [Russia] against the city.

    I have witnessed three floors of a residential building blown to pieces by a rocket in Kyiv, thousands of innocent civilians living underground. I saw human remains after a fierce fight at the Beresteiska metro station [in Kyiv]. And I have experienced the mental state of being under constant siege for a week. Yet, I have also witnessed the determination of civilians, soldiers, and volunteers across the city.

    Even though my two colleagues and I are from Hungary, and our government is close with Russian leadership, we never heard even the slightest slur against us and everyone was super helpful. [Now back in Hungary] I work as a volunteer to help [Ukrainian] refugees.  

    Today when working as a volunteer, I met an elderly woman at the railway station in Budapest, who is a refugee from Kyiv. She didn’t speak English — I showed her a photo I took at a residential building that was blown up in a rocket attack near Boryspil [airport]. She said through an interpreter who suddenly appeared that her friend’s son lived in that building. We looked at each other for just one second, with no common language — at that moment, we didn’t need any.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Natalie Gryvnyak/CPJ Ukraine consultant.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ‘There will be more repression’: Exiled Russian journalist Irina Borogan on Moscow’s censorship of Ukraine invasion

    As the Russian military continues its invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin is also fighting a different kind of battle at home in its attempts to quash independent news coverage and dissenting narratives about the attack it launched on February 24.

    Across Russia, journalists have been detained and their outlets investigated, blocked, and restricted from using social media. On Friday, March 4, Russia’s State Duma approved a criminal code amendment making “false” reporting on the war punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Some journalists have closed their outlets and fled. 

    Irina Borogan, co-founder with Andrei Soldatov of Agentura.ru, a news website covering Russian state surveillance, calls the situation in Russia “unprecedented.” Based in London, Borogan fled Russia last year out of concerns that she would be charged with treason over her journalism, which focuses on Russia’s state security services and online surveillance technology. 

    CPJ spoke with Borogan about the recent spate of draconian measures in Russia, access to information, and how she sees internet censorship evolving in the country. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

    London-based Irina Borogan fled Russia last year out of concerns that her journalism on security and surveillance put her at risk for treason charges. (Photo: Konstantin Zavrazhin)

    The Russian government has long had independent media in its crosshairs, but the recent “false” news restrictions and the decisions of Dozhd TV and radio station Ekho Moskvy to close amid pressure make the situation seem particularly acute. Why is this happening now?

    Irina Borogan: The independent media broadcasted and published information about the war in Ukraine. Under the current law in Russia, they have to say that it’s a “special operation” and the goal of the special operation in Ukraine is to “denazify” Ukraine. I understand for Western news [consumers], it sounds absurd or crazy, but it’s how it is for the authorities. 

    The independent media was just reporting information about what is going on. That’s what infuriated the Kremlin. If you try to look at the picture of what’s going on in Ukraine through the Kremlin’s media, you will be surprised to learn the airstrikes are precise, without civilian victims. That’s just crazy. Open RIA Novosti, TASS, or other state-controlled media and you’ll see an absolutely different picture [than in Western media].

    I’m afraid of the repression against people who express positions that are critical of the Kremlin publicly. I don’t want to be pessimistic because some people who live in the country are already in a state of fear and I don’t want to be alarmist. But it’s clear that there will be more repression.  

    By trying to control the Ukraine narrative, it seems like the Kremlin is creating some sort of parallel universe. How effective will their attempts at censorship actually be? 

    Propaganda will always stick with the people who want to hear it and don’t care to verify what they are hearing on official [state-owned] channels. There are a lot of these people, unfortunately. Others will continue to search for other kinds of information. 

    The Kremlin has tried to block or slow down global social media networks and is trying to entirely block independent media within Russia. If you put people under enough pressure, it is possible to force them to delete accounts and stop broadcasting—that’s when circumvention tools [such as Virtual Private Networks, or VPNs] become useless. 

    Even when the coup d’état was attempted in 1991 by the KGB, Ekho Moskvy continued to broadcast. Right now they can’t. 

    In Dozhd TV’s last broadcast, they played “Swan Lake,” a reference to the 1991 attempted coup when Russian state television played the ballet on loop. What do you make of that? 

    It was a bit of humor—and also a hint that things are very, very bad. 

    What do you predict in terms of internet connectivity and access in the coming months?

    Even more than now, people will have to use VPNs or TOR [software enabling anonymous communication] to access information on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. 

    Russia is not China. China started to build up its firewall at the beginning of the internet. Russia did not until 2012, before that the internet was absolutely free. There were few blockings and there were no rules on the internet. And thank God, Putin only started filtering the internet [blocking certain websites] 10 years ago. 

    The first internet filtering system was quite bad. But two years ago, in 2019, the authorities introduced the new internet filtering system in the country called “sovereign internet.” It is technically very sophisticated and quite effective. They were able to slow down Twitter a year ago and we see that now they are successfully blocking Facebook and other platforms and other media. 

    With sovereign internet blocking, Roskomnadzor, the state internet regulator, can basically flip a switch and block websites across the country. You push a button and block Facebook all over the country. 

    You’ve reported on quite a few conflicts, both from the front lines in Yugoslavia and Lebanon, and have also conducted investigations about the Second Chechen War. What role does information verification play in conflicts? 

    Information verification is important for both sides; both sides are involved in propaganda. But what we see right now is an incredibly stupid propaganda law. The Kremlin pushed forward this law [which punishes “false” news about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison] knowing full well that it is meant to prohibit any real narratives about the invasion from seeping out. But the Kremlin also thought that Russia would take control over Kyiv in the first few days after the invasion. Now that [the invasion] is turning into a long and contentious war, the propaganda can only do so much and state authorities are trying to make it even more difficult for news about the invasion to spread domestically. 


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Katherine Jacobsen/CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.