Realities. Siberia

Regarding the charges brought against Svetlana Khustik: the investigation does not understand how journalism works

Soviet joke: “They say Rabinovich won the Volga in the lottery?” - “That's right. Only not Rabinovich, but Ivanov. And not a Volga, but a hundred rubles. And not in the lottery, but in cards. And he didn’t win, he lost.”

Novaya found out what exactly the charges brought against Krasnoyarsk journalist Svetlana Khustik consisted of yesterday. Obviously, there is a “fake” in that article - as the Russian state interprets it (in the sense that the Ministry of Defense did not officially say anything about it). The only question is that it is not Rabinovich, but Ivanov, and he did not win, but lost. That is, the accusation was delivered, in our opinion, to the wrong address.

Judge for yourself. You don't even have to break the law to search for this material - it's in the public domain. Or, as the Main Investigation Department of the Krasnoyarsk Investigative Committee rightly reported , “material containing, under the guise of reliable information, deliberately false information about the actions of the RF Armed Forces, was posted in the publication’s community, open for public viewing.” What publication is this? TASS reports this, citing law enforcement agencies: we are talking about the project “Siberia. Realities”, included by the Russian Ministry of Justice in the register of “foreign agents”. When is the material posted and what is it? This is an interview and it was posted in May 2023. This is again reported to us by the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for the Krasnoyarsk Territory and Khakassia.

In general, based on all the leads given to us, the text from Krasnoyarsk is easily searched and found. We will not quote, since “Siberia. Realii" is a subsidiary project of Radio Liberty, recognized as a "foreign agent" and, in addition, in 2024 - an undesirable organization. The date is important: at that time, at the time of publication of the text, May 2023, not yet, not recognized. And in Russia (at least for now) there is no ban on interaction with “foreign agents” of adult citizens, therefore, in the very fact of Svetlana Khustik’s cooperation in May 2023 with this publication there is no crime. It also doesn’t exist in the fact that this interview is signed not “Svetlana Khustik”, but “Olga Sorokina”. Creative pseudonym.

So, in this extended interview we are talking about the tragic events of August 1941 in the Kirovograd region (Ukraine), when the Germans surrounded two Soviet armies. And about two human destinies, father and son. The father was in captivity, and the son, an artist, opened an exhibition then, in the spring of 2023, in the Krasnoyarsk Museum “Peace Square”, restoring the history of his father. This is not quite painting - live installations, lightboxes... But - to the “fake”. Where can we consider it here, if we are talking about the 41st? And they found him.

The interview, as said, is extended. After a conversation with the son of a father who survived captivity, Khustik moves on to the museum’s guest book, thanks to the artist, and the words of a Novosibirsk historian who visited the exhibition with his students. The historian speaks well and smoothly, mentioning the context into which it suddenly found itself for the author and the organizers of the exhibition. No one could predict what would happen in the place where the Red Army soldiers were captured and kept in inhumane conditions in 1941. And a rocket hit the house. Whose missile is it - that’s what the “fake” is: the material directly says whose missile it is and how many and who died from it. Spoken in one sentence. 16 words. 98 characters (with spaces). And this is not said by a historian or Khustik - the editors of Siberia. Realities." Because a note is given to the historian’s words about “context” - in parentheses. And after this note - so that no one reading, including employees of the FSB and the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee, gets anything wrong - there is a dash and the signature: “SR”. Not O.S. (Olga Sorokina), not Author. (Author), namely SR. That is, “Siberia. Realities." Editorial.

And this “fake” - as government agencies understand and interpret it - is not of the interviewer and not of the interviewee, not of a journalist, not of a historian, not of an artist.

This is the nightmare of all newspapermen, separated and distant from their editorial offices - such interference in the text. But these are the realities - it was, is and will be.

There are such editors - for some reason it seems to them that they know better, are better versed, etc. Sometimes this is true, but this is clearly not the case.

Could Hustic write this note herself and hide behind the editor’s initials? No, I couldn't. Firstly, this is not according to the rules, and secondly, she is the author, and she could not help but see that this note, this interference in the historian’s speech, if not directly contradicts it, is in clear dissonance with it. After all, the historian is just saying that we - all of us - instead of feeling unconditional horror, we begin to speculate whose rocket this is. The historian says that a huge human tragedy is happening - and it doesn’t matter who speaks what language. And here, as if in disharmony with this beauty, 98 characters (with spaces) appear. Propaganda, fake? Call it whatever you want. Something else is important here.

Every crime has a name. It’s simple in journalism - it’s all signed by someone. And here is the signature. What does Khustik have to do with it? Find out who entered these 98 characters (including spaces), if it is so important. Well, yes, it’s easier to look for chervonets under a lantern. Khustik is nearby. The universe is expanding, time is humming and rushing, and we are all in the paradigm of Soviet jokes.

Under the interview in the public domain at the time I open it, there are 2964 views. This, presumably, is with employees of the FSB and the Investigative Committee.

That same “fake” of 16 words is repeated even more briefly in the caption under the photo of the destroyed house and in the announcement of the interview in the “publication community.” And again this is not Khustik, but the one who worked with the text after her.

I found only one flea in Khustik. She writes that the artist did not answer the question from the correspondent of “Siberia. Realii" about his attitude towards the current *** in Ukraine. That’s what it says: not SVO, but - ***. How dangerous and deadly this flea is is definitely not for me to judge. I will only note that if we leave only this claim as the bottom line, it will be a clear example of the selectivity of law enforcement. Who today doesn’t allow themselves this liberty - to say ***. From military officers to senior Kremlin officials.

Svetlana says that after Radio Liberty was declared undesirable, she ended all ties with it and cut off all connections. As far as can be judged from the information officially released by the authorities, Svetlana is not charged with collaborating with an undesirable organization. That is, so far the accusation revolves around one interview.

There are no questions - it’s convenient: the interview, which can neither be shown nor retold, remains to be taken at the word of the reports of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee.

And Svetlana, naturally, will sit. But we know how and what happened in reality.

Knowledge of how it was is, it seems, the only thing we have left.