Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire

The media environment in Russia… is characterized by the use of a pliant judiciary to prosecute independent journalists, impunity for the physical harassment and murder of journalists, and continued state control or influence over almost all traditional media outlets. In 2013, the Russian government enacted additional legal restrictions on freedom of speech…. While bloggers and journalists, as well as radio and television broadcasters, are successfully utilizing the internet to reach audiences interested in alternative and more balanced sources of information, the government has begun to use a combination of the law, the courts, and regulatory pressure to extend its crackdown to online media.”¹⁰⁴

Experts on the Russian media propaganda apparatus even argue that it has become “the central mechanism of a new type of authoritarianism far subtler than 20th-century strains.”¹⁰⁵ The Russian political activist and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov commented on the role of the opposition in the face of state propaganda in 2014: “Unfortunately, we have to reiterate that white is white and black is black. Because today the country is living in complete lies, which are broadcast 24/7 by the state propaganda machine.”¹⁰⁶

Russian propaganda has also been evolving to combine popular culture with information warfare. For example in late 2014, a well-known Russian actor was shown with a machine gun shooting or pretending to shoot at Ukrainian forces during a cease-fire, while wearing a press helmet. This incident was unanimously condemned by the Ukrainian authorities, who described the actor as an “accomplice in terrorist activities” following the incident.¹⁰⁷ He was also criticized at home by Russia’s Union of Journalists and the head of the union’s Moscow branch.¹⁰⁸ The participation of a popular Russian figure in the Ukrainian war was likely intended to boost morale and support for the war in Russia.

In addition to the state-dominated news media, the Russian government has established organizations to provide a Kremlin-approved view of history. In 2009 the paradoxically named President’s Commission to Prevent Falsification of History was established. The organization aims at promulgating history as set out by the Soviet regime if not outright historical revisionism. As with Russkiy Mir, top-level officials from the President’s administration, the FSB, the Federal Intelligence Service (SVR), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs support this organization. The commission has sought both to “explain” history and to “prevent attempts to rewrite history [that] are becoming more and more harsh, depraved and aggressive.”¹⁰⁹ Contentious historical topics include Stalinist repressions, Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In late 2014, Putin himself attempted on several occasions to rehabilitate the previously condemned pact, which sought to carve up Eastern Europe. During a meeting with young historians in Moscow, Putin stated, “The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany. People say: ‘Ach, that’s bad.’ But what’s bad about that if the Soviet Union didn’t want to fight, what’s bad about it?”¹¹⁰ Also, in 2008 the Historical Memory Foundation was established in Moscow with the official goal of countering the efforts of European states to “rewrite the history” of the twentieth century, when in reality these states seek greater acknowledgment of Soviet-era atrocities both at home and abroad. The foundation is guided by the controversial figure Alexander Dyukov, who has made a name for himself by seeking to deny or diminish Soviet repressions. He is banned from a number of European Schengen zone countries.¹¹¹