Putin Goes After FSB Whistleblowers - But Failed... Revised Version, Giving Credit To True Source

"Two weeks into the war, it finally dawned on Putin that he was completely misled. The foreign intelligence service, fearful of his responses, seems to have told Putin what he wanted to hear."

“After two weeks of war, Russian President Vladimir Putin began a crackdown on his favorite agency, the FSB. According to journalists Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, the so-called 5th Service of the FSB came under attack. According to Soldatov and Borogan's sources, its leadership has been placed under house arrest. There is no official confirmation of this information. Meduza asked Soldatov and Borogan to explain what was going on. Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan are journalists and writers, authors of several books about the Russian authorities and special services. They have been studying the FSB for many years and have an extensive network of sources.

The 5th Service (officially called the Operational Information and International Liaison Service) oversees the FSB's relations with foreign partners, including American agencies. Within the Service there is the infamous Department of Operative Information (DOI), which performs the functions of the FSB's foreign intelligence.

The FSB received the right to conduct operations abroad in the late 1990s, when Vladimir Putin was director of this special service. At the same time, a new directorate was formed within the FSB, which was tasked with conducting intelligence operations in the former Soviet Union. (We have long been following the activities of this division of the FSB and writing about it.)

When the "color revolutions" led to the fact that many of the pro-Kremlin leaders in the former Soviet Union lost power, the department was given the task of doing everything to keep these countries in the sphere of influence of Russia.

In 2004, the Directorate was upgraded to a full-fledged department, the Operative Information Department. Soon it acquired a new director, Sergei Beseda, who had previously served in the FSB department that oversaw the administration of the Russian president, where he had excellent connections. Soon DPI officers began to be noticed in Belarus, Moldova and Abkhazia. It turned out that their main task there was not classical espionage, but the support of pro-Kremlin candidates in local elections. However, Ukraine held a special place in the priorities of the DPI throughout the post-Soviet space.

In June 2010, we received information that a website with the catchy name lubyanskayapravda.com ("Lubyanskaya Pravda") had appeared, where secret documents of the FSB were posted. Among the various reports of the secret service, there were reports from the DPI, addressed directly to Putin. One of them spoke about a document, which was falsified to undermine relations between Ukraine and Turkmenistan. It was about a falsified report of Ukrainian special services on the financing of the Turkmen opposition. It was a classic FSB action: DPI leaked the fake report to the Ukrainian media, and then something unexpected happened: the Russian intelligence service (SVR) took the report as genuine and reported it to the Kremlin.

Beseda was clearly proud of himself when he described what had happened in his report to the first person. In April 2014, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry sent its Russian counterparts a request for Beseda's interrogation. Kiev claimed that he was in Ukraine on February 20-21, during the Maidan revolution. The Ukrainian authorities considered it important as part of the investigation into the crimes committed during the mass actions in Kiev on February 18-22, 2014 (referring to the dispersal of protesters by force with the use of firearms, which resulted in the deaths of people - Meduza's commentary).

The FSB was forced to confirm that Sergey Beseda was indeed in Kyiv on February 20-21. But they claimed that he came only to check the level of protection of the Russian embassy - a version that no one believed. Since 2014, Beseda has been on U.S. and EU sanctions lists.

However, this story had no effect on the position of the 5th Service: DPI operatives were still gathering intelligence information in Ukraine, recruiting sources and carrying out subversive activities.

It was the 5th Service that was responsible for providing information to Vladimir Putin about political events in Ukraine on the eve of the invasion. And it seems that after two weeks of war, Putin finally realized that he had simply been misled: the 5th Service, afraid to make the leader angry, simply supplied him with what he himself wanted to hear.

Our sources now say that General Beseda and his deputy are placed under house arrest. Among the reasons cited is the misuse of funds allocated for operations, as well as poor intelligence. Indeed: it turns out that the intelligence work of Putin's cadre intelligence officer is very bad.” https://meduza.io/feature/2022/03/11/putin-nachal-repressii-protiv-5-y-sluzhby-fsb-imenno-ona-nakanune-voyny-obespechivala-prezidenta-rossii-dannymi-o-politicheskoy-situatsii-v-ukraine - translated from the original Russian with DeepL Translator.

The original article, which this version replaces, did not supply any attribution to the original source of the information, it was only by luck that I found it… And about the real source for this - Meduza - it’s a part of the Russian alternative press, and Putin’s government, in power since January 1, 2000, didn’t like the stories they were publishing, and banned the alternative press, including Meduza. They didn’t do it by soft methods, either, nothing sneaky about it at all, like in certain other countries, which use large corporations to make end runs around the Bill of Rights, or subsidize “established media” with taxpayer dollars to print government propaganda - they simply enacted a law which meted out 15-year prison sentences to people who dare to say anything other than that which the State - i.e. Putin - dictates.

So journalists have had to flee for their lives, and now Meduza operates out of Riga, Latvia. And now, they’re crowdfunding to support themselves: “Meduza has been blocked in Russia. We were ready for this and our work continues, no matter what, but we need your support like never before. We need it now. Tomorrow could be too late. We are an independent publication, and we work only in the interests of our readers. Many of our readers in Russia can no longer contribute, so we turn to you, our audience around the world.”
And here’s a link you can use to help support them: https://support.meduza.io/en

Here’s a link to their site: https://meduza.io/ You’ll see that the majority of their stories are in Russian, although they have a small English section as well. But don’t let that stop you - https://www.deepl.com/en/translator does a really good job now translating Russian into English, the mistakes made are pretty minor, from what I’ve seen. So just copy the Russian text into the translator page, and voilá, you get out English…

Incidentally, they have an editorial code of conduct, which journalists in other places would do well to adopt and abide by, especially if they wish the trust and respect of their readers…
Meduza Editorial Code

"Meduza is an international Russian-language publication. Every day, our staff reports on events in Russia and the world, and we do our best to do so accurately, impartially and without bias. We act consciously and responsibly; we give a voice to those who are not heard; and we make sure that our publications do not make things worse for those who are already struggling. We investigate complaints that come to our editorial staff with the utmost care. We respect our readers.

In its daily work, Meduza strives to meet international professional standards. The human rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are of absolute value to us. Our special focus is on people's right to free speech and the free flow of information.

A set of principles and rules that guide our daily activities is laid out in the Medusa Code. We consider all editorial staff as journalists, as well as staff in other departments that create editorial products, including developers and designers; their work is also regulated by this code.

Independence

Meduza’s journalists should endeavor to avoid conflicts of interest in all circumstances.

The editorial office does not support any one political party (including movements and platforms) or any one politician, and we do not accept help from either in any form. Meduza also does not support social movements, commercial enterprises, or state agencies at any level of government, and we do not accept help from these groups. We reserve the right to report any attempts to pressure our editorial office. We devote equal attention to everyone and treat all with respect.

Meduza always covers its own costs. Whenever preparing a story, the editorial office does not accept money from outsiders, and refuses all offers to pay for or provide free transportation, housing, or food, and these same restrictions apply to all full-time and freelance correspondents and staff. This rule does not apply to free press events (like press conferences, concerts, performances, book presentations, and so on). Any exceptions to this rule are permitted only with the approval of Meduza’s editor-in-chief, and the reasons must be made clear to readers when the story is published.

The editorial office does not permit journalists who are biased toward or against the subject of a story to participate in its preparation. If this conflict of interest is somehow unavoidable, readers must be warned in the published product.

The editorial office can veto the publication of any promoted content. In all disputes, the final decision belongs to the editorial office’s authorized representative. 

Meduza does not pay sources for information or reward them in any other way.

Objectivity and impartiality

Meduza is a publication founded on fact-based journalism. No story can omit or conceal from readers any fact of public significance. Every side must be given the chance to express themselves. At the same time, we purposefully seek to amplify the voices of those who often go overlooked.

Meduza’s staff cannot engage in activism while at work (except in cases of professional solidarity). Employees must inform Meduza about any civic, political, or human-rights activism conducted outside work, in order to prevent possible conflicts of interest. Meduza’s journalists should strive to report the news, not become the news. 

Meduza does not use “hate speech,” and we refuse to spread, incite, or justify hatred against any group of people. We do not divide the subjects of our reporting along a dichotomy of “us versus them.” We use neutral language that does not discriminate against people on any basis.

Truthfulness and credibility

We endeavor to ensure that our reporting is based on information from named sources (two or more), though working in countries with significant legal restrictions means this is not always entirely possible. In cases when revealing a source’s identity could threaten their safety, we reserve the right to publish their comments anonymously, recognizing that we assume the reputation and legal risks associated with the information’s credibility. We also protect our sources using other legal means.

Meduza’s journalists are required to verify the facts in their stories. Our journalists are prohibited from intentionally misleading or deceiving readers. Meduza’s journalists are also forbidden from using the publication as a platform to promote their own views.

Meduza’s journalists must collect information openly, identifying themselves by their real names and the nature of their occupation. “Undercover” work is permitted in exceptional cases and only with the editor-in-chief’s approval. When publishing such reporting, we are required to inform readers about this methodology and explain why it was necessary. Recording any conversations must be carried out openly, and sources should be warned in advance.

Though it is common in Russia to allow subjects to revise their remarks after an interview, we consider this practice to be wrong and endeavor to avoid it. Meduza's editors reserve the right to determine the conditions of interviews, and persons interviewed must be notified in advance of these terms.

Responsibility

Our journalists’ lives and safety are our paramount concern. In the event of pressure, threats, or harassment, Meduza’s editorial office will defend its staff by all means available. The editorial office reserves the right to protect staff even in cases when this pressure is not related to employees’ activities as journalists. 

Regarding vulnerable and persecuted groups, Meduza observes the principle of “do no harm.” Reporting on members of these groups should be scrutinized to identify all the ways Meduza’s stories might impact these individuals, in order to prevent any negative consequences. Staff’s careful approach cannot affect the objectivity or completeness of reporting on events that involve members of vulnerable groups.

Our main goal is to inform readers honestly about the heart of any issue, avoiding blindspots, innuendo, and omissions. Any event that is significant to the public can and should be described as truthfully as possible. We are required, however, to warn our audience when content included in a story might shock them.

Meduza does not delete published content. Rare exceptions are made only as an extreme solution after a critically large number of errors are discovered in an article. Only the editor-in-chief can approve the deletion of published content, and in these cases a detailed explanation for the decision must appear in place of the original article.

If factual or semantic errors are found in published content, they should be corrected as soon as possible. In these cases, readers should be told what changes were made and why.

Meduza operates in different countries, though we write mainly about events in Russia for Russian- and English-speaking audiences. We strive to observe the laws of both Latvia and the Russian Federation. Wherever one country’s laws contradict the other’s, as well as in cases where regulations directly or indirectly violate the freedom of speech, Meduza will act in accordance with our readers’ best interests, our code of ethics, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Rules of conduct for staff

Meduza’s employees will respect the private lives, preferences, beliefs, and tastes of their colleagues, regardless of their position. Discrimination on any grounds is prohibited.

We do not interfere in the personal lives of our staff and we welcome any kind of relationship among coworkers, while considering it unacceptable to impose any kind of communication on colleagues that is unrelated to work. Meduza is a space completely free from any form of violence.

The public views each Meduza employee as an official representative for the publication. When acting publicly, including speech on personal platforms like social media, each staff member should weigh the possible consequences for Meduza’s reputation. All conflict situations at Meduza are resolved in accordance with the rules and procedures adopted by the editorial office.

Meduza's code of conduct was written between September and October 2019 by its founders and approved by Meduza's editorial and supervisory boards on November 8, 2019.”