22 Jul 24 | Germany, News and features, Ukraine
The Babyn Yar massacre is one of the bloodiest atrocities in Ukraine’s dark history. In late September 1941, 33,771 Jewish residents of Kyiv were herded by the Nazis into a ravine (“Babi Yar” in Russian, “Babyn Yar” in Ukrainian) on the outskirts of the city. Over a two-day period, the victims were shot and buried in mass graves as part of what became known as “the Holocaust of Bullets”.
Oleg Chorny’s small-budget feature documentary From Babi Yar to Freedom tells the story of the massacre through the lens of Soviet defector and writer Anatoly Kuznetsov, who first revealed the full scale of the atrocity to the world when he escaped to the UK in 1969. The film was completed in 2017, five years before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and is an extraordinary tribute to Kuznetsov’s determination to tell the truth in the face of a wall of Soviet censorship and disinformation.
Chorny’s documentary deserves a wide international audience, but in an irony that would not be lost on the dissidents of the 1960s, no one can see it because of a rights dispute over the central archive interview in the film owned by the giant US TV corporation CBS.
In July 1969, shortly after Kuznetsov defected, he gave a lengthy interview to the veteran CBS news journalist Morley Safer in which he opened up about his decision to escape the Soviet Union. Kuznetsov went to London, accompanied by a KGB minder, to research the time Lenin had spent there in 1903, and secretly took with him film containing the text of the full version of his book Babi Yar: A Document in the Form of a Novel, stitched into his clothing. The book is based on eyewitness accounts of the massacre and Kuznetsov’s own boyhood diary.
Now, Chorny has been told that nine minutes of CBS footage from the Kuznetsov interview (freely available on YouTube) will cost $80,000 – more than the budget of the movie. Wazee Digital, a Colorado-based asset management company which negotiates on behalf of CBS, has refused to budge on this fee.
Chorny told Index that the fate of the film and the fate of Kuznetsov were intertwined in his mind. “I’m sorry, you must understand that the story with this film is a sad story for me because it was not released… But if something happened and this movie was released, I think it would be so important, because nothing has changed from these times with the KGB. You can call it the FSB, but it does not matter.”
In the documentary, Chorny follows Ukrainian writer Stanislav Tsalyk as he tracks down traces of Kuznetsov – who died in 1979 – in Kyiv and then in London. Tsalyk travels to the UK with Kuznetsov’s son Olexiy, who remained in the Soviet Union. In one of the most moving scenes, Olexiy stands next to his father’s unmarked grave in Highgate Cemetery. Olexiy, too, has now died without seeing the film released.
The story of Kuznetsov is a classic Cold War tale, but it is much more than that. It is a story about how stories themselves are told, how they can be misrepresented, and how they are suppressed.
Kuznetsov’s Babi Yar has had many lives and suffered multiple rounds of censorship. When it was first published in the Soviet Union in 1966, the censor made cuts that underplayed the suffering of the Jews. In the Soviet narrative, Babi Yar was known as a Nazi act of horror against Soviet citizens. The Jews of Kyiv were thus doubly erased: once literally and then historically. This was not all that was removed from the original text: references to cannibalism during the Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor, where millions died as a direct result of Stalin’s policies, and parallels between fascism and communism were all excised. Anything, in fact, that showed the Soviets as less than heroic.
The whole uncensored version is recognised as a singular masterpiece. The first chapter, Ashes, begins: “This book contains nothing but the truth.” The typefaces of the book reveal its troubled publication history, with the original text in plain type, previously censored passages rendered in bold, and later additions from Kuznetsov in square brackets.
Oddly, this adds to the experience of reading Babi Yar. Its fragmented text suits the battered and broken subject matter.
Take the following passage about Dina Pronicheva, a 30-year-old puppet-theatre actor and survivor of the massacre who later gave evidence against the Nazis. “Dina went across the hillock and sat down. Everybody there was silent, crazed with fright. She was afraid to look up: somebody might recognise her, quite by chance, and cry out: ‘She’s a dirty Jewess!’ These people would stop at nothing to save their own skins. For that reason she tried not to look at anybody, and nobody looked at her. Only an old woman sitting next to her in a fluffy knitted scarf complained quietly to Dina that she had been seeing her daughter-in-law off and had got caught… But she herself was a Ukrainian, she was no Jewess, and whoever thought it would come to this? They had all been seeing people off.”
The censored words in bold give the episode a very different meaning and emotional impact.
When Babi Yar was republished in a Vintage Classics edition in the UK last year under the title Babi Yar: The Story of Ukraine’s Holocaust, it didn’t receive the attention it deserved.
When I talked to Chorny in Kyiv over Zoom, I suggested that this latest episode in the story of the massacre is part of a pattern. I said: “Even if you go back to the origins of the story… This is a story about silence. It’s a story about censorship. It’s a story about not being able to tell the story and so…”
Chorny stopped me and said my interpretation did not go far enough: “Excuse me, this is a story of a totalitarian system which is the same as the Nazi totalitarian system. And this is a story of resistance – Anatoly Kuznetsov’s personal resistance, I mean: to escape to publish the full version in the West.”
Josephine Burton of Dash Arts has been pushing for the release of Chorny’s film since 2021, when her organisation began work on Songs of Babyn Yar, a music and theatre project that used Kuznetsov’s text in the production. Burton, who also championed the cause of the Crimean Tatars in Dash Arts’ 2022 performance Crimea 5am, told Index: “Oleg Chorny’s documentary needs to be seen. It tells a remarkable story, a vital contribution to the history of Ukraine and the Holocaust. This film should not be silenced.”
Chorny has also gained the support of the Koffler Centre in Toronto, which ran a series of events about the Babyn Yar massacre last year, including a Zoom discussion with Chorny and his team.
In the meantime, Chorny describes life in Kyiv: “We are living some kind of surrealistic reality. This is mixed with news from the front from our colleagues and friends. A lot of losses. Especially in the last year, we buried a lot of friends and some colleagues who disappeared on the front line.”
But the director has kept himself busy. Chorny has made a short film, Kyiv in the Days of War, about the aftermath of the Russian attacks in 2022, and three 15-minute films in a series about creativity and the Ukraine conflict: Art in the Land of War. In one of these, If I Stop It Means They Win, sculptor and graphic artist Oleksandr Smyrnov says: “I think that if they prevent me from doing what I’m good at and what I want to do, then they have won. That’s why I’ll keep doing it.”
Two years ago, an appeal to raise money for a headstone for Kuznetsov in Highgate cemetery raised more than $1,300. In another twist in the story, his surviving daughter has not given her permission for it to be erected. The best memorial would be the release of From Babi Yar to Freedom. [CBS was approached for a comment on this story.]
19 Jul 24 | China, Hong Kong, News and features, Newsletters, Russia
Has China entered a “garbage time of history”? Some netizens think so. According to a Guardian article from yesterday, the term is trending, coined to reflect a generation who feel squeezed by rising costs and other social burdens. Those behind the term even created a “2024 misery ranking grand slam”, which tallies up the number of misery points that a person might have earned this year (one star for unemployment, two stars for a mortgage, another for hoarding the expensive liquor Moutai and so on). I always felt bonded to many of my Chinese friends by what I’d say was a shared sense of humour – the dry, acerbic sort that Brits are famed for, the one that is still able to chortle no matter how bad the news. It’s very much on display in this story.
The censors though aren’t laughing. They’re scrubbing. Pity these people who take away the lemonade from those with lemons.
Two other stories emerged from the region this week that, while not necessarily “garbage”, were bad. The first concerned a rumour that Xi Jinping had a stroke (side note: Xi is 71, his mother is 97, and his father died aged 88). The rumour spread across Chinese social media and was picked up on X by the activist Jennifer Zeng, who has a huge following. It was later debunked, including by the Reuters Fact Check team here. In the interim, China’s censors blocked posts about it.
The story was troubling, and not just the censorship angle. There are perils to getting things wrong when you are meant to be on the side fighting for freedoms, a central one being that it’s an own goal, a way to feed into the autocrats’ line that it is others, not themselves, who can’t be trusted.
Another troubling story this week came out of Hong Kong. On Wednesday Wall Street Journal reporter Selina Cheng was laid off. The Post said it was part of a restructuring. Cheng believes it was linked to her taking up the position of chair at the Hong Kong Journalists Association, a union that campaigns for media freedom. She said she was pressed by her employer not to stand for election for chair, being told the role would be “incompatible with my employment at the Wall Street Journal”. The WSJ have not commented on her firing. But a pattern appears to be emerging of major international outlets being spooked by association with the HKJA. According to an article from the China Media Project, three recently elected members of the HKJA board, alongside an outgoing leader of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China, said they faced similar pressures.
“All asked to remain anonymous, fearing reprisals from their employers, but confirmed that the Journal is not alone: the biggest names in Hong Kong and China’s foreign press have been pressuring their employees to stand back and stay quiet, or face the repercussions. For the territory’s embattled journalists, defending the free press has become a fight on two fronts: against both an increasingly authoritarian government and their own employers, based in the West and nominally committed to liberal principles,” the article said.
Meanwhile Tom Grundy from Hong Kong Free Press, one of the few independent media to still operate from Hong Kong, told Index that the news added to the sense of vulnerability felt by journalists there. He said:
“When a giant international news organisation fails to support the city’s only independent media union and its officers, they further erode press freedom by closing precious space. It sends a terrible signal, and makes their own remaining staff more vulnerable in the long run. Especially locals.”
The Beijing supporting media of course is loving it. The Global Times tabloid was calling the press union “a malignant tumour that harms the city’s safety and security”.
Finally on the note of the WSJ, we have just heard news that the reporter Evan Gershkovich has been sentenced to 16 years in a Russian prison on espionage charges after he was arrested last March while on a reporting trip in the city of Yekaterinburg 1,600 km east of Moscow. That this news was predicable doesn’t make it any less disturbing. We will continue to fight for his release.
19 Jul 24 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria
On a summer evening in June 2000, the Syrian official television channel interrupted its regular broadcast and announced the death of the country’s then President Hafez al-Assad.
The screen turned black, declaring a 40-day official mourning period, during which television viewers were subjected to programmes about the accomplishments and heroism of the deceased president.
News was all but suppressed for weeks. Added to that, it later became clear that the president had been dead for some time before it was even reported on TV.
Mohamad Mansour, editor-in-chief of the al Arabi al Qadeem website and a former employee of Syrian television said: “We must remember the state of confusion and caution that prevailed at that time. Media workers hesitated until they received orders to announce the death; I even remember one department head at the television channel presenting a film about animals, leading to his dismissal as the authorities considered it an insult to Assad.”
Delaying the announcement of disasters, misfortunes, and deaths had been the standard approach by the Syrian regime for decades, but when Assad’s son Bashar replaced his father that changed: the rapid dissemination of news, even about people in government inner circles, became the norm.
And now, it’s changing again. Controlling when and how news is released is increasingly becoming the norm and some are suggesting this is an ominous sign of growing Russian influence in state affairs.
The latest sign of this was when the president’s closest adviser, Mrs Luna Al-Shibil, was involved in a car accident. She died from her injuries a few days later. While the Syrian independent media waited only a few hours to announce the accident involving Al-Shibil, it was days later before her death was officially confirmed by the government.
Journalist and activist Mostafa Al-Nuaimi believes that the Syrian regime today is resorting to a policy of denial just as it did in the past.
He told Index, “With the presence of social media and the presence of international intersections and multiple decision-making circles within its state, it sometimes has to disclose information that does not align with the mentality with which it governs the country. ”
Al-Nuaimi, who has closely followed the Arab Spring revolutions, believes that this all heralds a new phase of “eliminations” within the regime’s institutions is coming, driven by foreign influence.
He said the regime’s tactics in dealing with these eliminations will not change. “This is through denial in the first phase, followed by disseminating information through parallel media outlets, and then the official announcement through official media outlets. This is what happened with Luna Al-Shibil.”
As rumours circulate about the cause of Al-Shibil’s death, Al-Nuaimi says there were “claims she was sending information about the issue of the Iranian militias in Syria and its implications on the Syrian regime, and based on that, she was removed and completely dismissed.”
Syrian journalist Ahmad Primo, director of the Verify fact-checking platform, said, “I do not want to delve into the cause of death or illness because that is a separate discussion, especially since the regime has a long history in this regard.”
Primo did not notice any particular delay in announcing her death, regardless of its causes.
Primo said, “the announcement was quick, even if indirect, through the Presidency’s account on X.” However, no such announcement was made on official state television.
Announcements about the health of the President’s wife Asma also seem to have changed, perhaps to take the focus away from the eliminations. London-born Asma was diagnosed with leukaemia in May this year, following a successful recovery from breast cancer discovered in 2018.
Primo said, “The regime’s media machinery has taken a direct announcement approach since the start of military intervention [in Ukraine], especially given Russia’s involvement in all [Syrian] state details”.
He added: “I will not delve into the topic of conspiracy but I believe the regime seeks to gain credibility for what it publishes by pre-empting other media outlets.”
There is also the matter of the news that is never announced. Primo says that there is a lot of news about senior figures that is not officially announced but only becomes known to the media through leaks.
After nine years of Russian military intervention in Syria, observers believe that President Putin has achieved a large part of his goals. He has an effective strategic and military presence on the shores of the Mediterranean (huge Russian military bases have been built there), and President Bashar al-Assad has become a supporter of his war in Ukraine even if that support is only in the media.
In a recent television interview, the Syrian president expressed his confidence that Russia would “emerge victorious” from the conflict in Ukraine and would once again “unite the two brotherly peoples”.
Egyptian journalist Hossam Al-Wakeel, editor-in-chief of fact-checking website Tafnied, said: “The official discourse is a fundamental means by which governments deliver information and form perceptions and concepts among the public and the different parties associated with the state.”
He added: “The official discourse must be responsible and transparent, but reality often does not align with this for many governments.”
He continued: “In the Syrian case…this pattern, if it has changed, should be linked to the political process managed by the regime at present, and the evolving nature of its relations and negotiations with the international community and with Russia.”
The delay or otherwise in making announcements by the regime is about political management and appeasing allies.
“There are potential gains [to be had] from accelerating the announcement of crises or disasters,” says Al-Wakeel, who says that Bashar al-Assad will be considering the internal situation as well as changes in the level of international engagement with the Syrian issue in light of the war in Ukraine and the war in Palestine to explore how best to take advantage.
As Russia consolidates its military grip on the country, its grip on the media appears to be tightening too.
12 Jul 24 | Europe and Central Asia, France, Germany, Netherlands, News and features, Russia
A network of accounts flooded social media with disinformation in the run-up to the European Parliamentary elections a new report has found.
The report was commissioned by the Social Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D) grouping together with the Dutch delegation GroenLinks-PvdA and produced by disinformation specialisists Trollrensics.
It reveals that organised networks of thousands of accounts, which the researchers believe are of likely Russian origin, actively influenced public opinion on X in France and Germany during the elections while voters in the Netherlands, Italy and the English-speaking public were also affected by the troll networks
Trollrensics’ data analysis showed that at least 20% of all tweets about the French far-right politician Zemour came from this troll network, for example. However, the research company estimated the actual percentage is significantly higher as the networks manipulated the X algorithm to amplify specific themes.
The research also found that German political party AfD received a huge boost thanks to the troll army. At least 10.7% of the tweets about the AfD came from the disinformation network.
The network focused mainly on spreading pro-Russian propaganda, messages about anti-vaxxers with anti-vaccination narratives and anti-LGBTIQ+ messages.
Thijs Reuten, an MEP for the S&D, said, “We commissioned this independent study as we were curious about the extent of online foreign interference and how measurable it is – especially because this sometimes seems so hard to ascertain. This study has shown that significant influence took place during the European elections. Troll armies managed to make topics trend and at the same time make certain news reports less visible.”
Reuten added, “This clearly shows our democracy is vulnerable and that foreign powers are willing to spend a lot of money and effort to sow division in our population. We need to defend ourselves better against such organised attempts of foreign interference. I expect the European Commission and the intelligence services to be on top of this. Our open society is in danger if troll armies are able to manipulate social media and, therefore, the public debate”.
