'Anna Politkovskaya's persona was much greater'. Slain Russian journalist's sister on 'Words of War'
Reporting the war in Chechnya
From 1999, Politkovskaya traveled to Chechnya almost every month for several years. Kudimova recalls that for many wronged and desperate people, Politkovskaya became "the last resort" - the one who could make things right. She took part in the negotiations for Nord-Ost, the 2002 hostage crisis at a Moscow theatre, after the Chechen rebels specifically requested her. In 2004, she hoped to help resolve the crisis in Beslan, where heavily armed militants held hostages in a school for three days. However, she never made it there - she was poisoned on the plane while en route to Beslan.In 2006, Politkovskaya was shot dead in the elevator of her apartment building in Moscow. Six men were convicted over the murder, but the person who ordered it has never been identified. Her sister Elena doubts that the mastermind will ever be brought to justice. "If they had wanted to find him, they probably would have done so by now," Kudimova adds.
Avoiding clichés
Before the film's release, Politkovskaya's family raised concerns about the Words of War script, believing the film took too many liberties with the truth. While the filmmakers insist that the drama is based on real events, they emphasise that it is not a biography. However, Politkovskaya's sister notes that the filmmakers did take the family's feedback into account, and certain scenes that raised the most questions were removed from the final cut."[Anna's son] Ilya was portrayed in the original script as a sort of womanizer, [and in the film] Anna doesn't have a romance with [Dmitry] Muratov," she said. Dmitry Muratov, a Nobel Prize-winning journalist, was Anna Politkovskaya's former colleague at the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta.According to Kudimova, Maxine Peake portrays her sister accurately, though she believes Anna's personality was "much greater and more complex" than what is depicted on screen. "Her real life had far more dramatic episodes than those shown in the film," she says.Kudimova criticised the film's setting for leaning too heavily into cold-weather clichés. "I was struck by the fact that it's constantly snowing, as if Russia has only one season. In reality, we have all four." However, Kudimova is grateful that the film helps preserve the memory of her sister.
Anna's legacy
Kudimova said that Anna never thought about her own legacy. She recalled how, at some point, someone had suggested Anna write an autobiography - she was in her 40s at the time. Anna had laughed at the idea, saying it felt more like something you do when you're a hundred. But then she came up with the idea of writing six short stories. At the end of each, she said, she was supposed to die - but didn't, for different reasons. And they were going to be funny stories. When asked about how Anna would want to be remembered, Elena says that her sister did dot think about her legacy: "She simply wanted to live."Words of War will be released in the UK on 30 June
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
CIA review criticizes procedures but not conclusions of intelligence report on 2016 Russia election interference
WASHINGTON — CIA officials failed in some cases to follow standard procedures in an intelligence analysis of Russian interference efforts in the 2016 election, according to an internal review declassified on Wednesday. Intelligence officers were given an unusually short timeline for the analysis, there was 'excessive involvement' by senior leaders and staff were given uneven access to crucial intelligence about Russia, the 'lessons-learned' review stated. But the review did not refute the findings of the 2017 intelligence assessment that Russia had waged an information warfare campaign designed to undermine Americans' confidence in the electoral process, damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald Trump 's prospects in the 2016 election. 'While the overall assessment was deemed defensible, the identified procedural anomalies and tradecraft issues highlight critical lessons for handling controversial or politically charged topics,' the review stated. Trump and his allies have long rejected intelligence and other reporting indicating that Russia employed false information and propaganda to try to influence the 2016 election and tip the scales in Trump's favor. They have accused intelligence and law enforcement officials of plotting to tie Trump to Russia and cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory in 2016. A special counsel appointed under the first Trump administration looked extensively into how the CIA crafted its assessment but filed no criminal charges and reported no clear evidence that the process was tainted by political bias. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation in 2020 concurred with the 2017 intelligence assessment and found no reason to dispute its conclusions. In Trump's second presidential term, his deputies have vowed to bring more transparency to the intelligence community and prevent any attempt to politicize its work. CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the internal review this year and declassified it on Wednesday, according to the spy agency. The intelligence assessment of the 2016 vote, which was requested by then President Barack Obama after the November election, found that Russia sought to undermine public faith in the democratic process, denigrate Clinton and that Moscow 'aspired' to help Trump win the election. Two senior leaders of a CIA mission center focusing on Russia objected to including the conclusion that Russia aimed to help secure Trump's victory, according to the internal review. They argued that the view was mainly supported by a single intelligence report while other judgments were backed up by more information. The review stated that the assessment was conducted in an unusually short timeline. Instead of having months to prepare a complex and politically sensitive analysis, the authors had 'less than a week to draft the assessment' and 'less than two days to formally coordinate it' with other intelligence officers. Multiple intelligence officers 'said they felt 'jammed' by the compressed timeline,' according to the review. The review said top CIA officials were heavily involved in the assessment effort, which 'was highly unusual in both scope and intensity.' As a result, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research were 'entirely shut out' of the analysis, which was a 'significant deviation' from standard practice in the intelligence community, according to the review. Authors of the 2016 assessment and other CIA officers also 'strongly opposed' including a reference in the analysis to the so-called 'Trump dossier' compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The dossier had unverified allegations about Trump colluding with Russia. In the end, a summary of the dossier was included in an annex, with a disclaimer that it was not used 'to reach the analytic conclusions' in the assessment. The review of the 2016 assessment also found reasons to praise the effort, saying much of the team's work showed 'robust' tradecraft with extensive sourcing and there was no sign of systemic problems. John Brennan, who was CIA director at the time of the assessment, told NBC News on Wednesday he was aware of the review but had not had a chance to read it yet.
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
Putin's stranglehold on the Russian press
Since Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the Russian press has been slowly, methodically strangled, which has forced existential choices on newspaper and TV journalists. Twenty-one have been killed – beaten, poisoned or gunned down. Others, such as Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, highly regarded investigative reporters, have been forced into exile. Yet others, like the 'dear friends' of this book's title, have chosen a different path – to cleave ever closer to the regime. The authors tell the fascinating story of those choices and allow us a glimpse of why they were taken. In 2000, Soldatov and Borogan were employed by the political department of the newspaper Izvestiya, where they made new friends – slightly older and more experienced journalists, whom they envied for their access to people in power and admired for their intelligence and bohemian glamour. This group's ideas about Russia seemed a bit 'retro': Petya Akopov envisaged the country as a spiritual power, in contrast to the West's moral decadence; Zhenya Baranov had pan-Slav leanings; while their patron, Evgeny Krutikov, was obsessed with the secret services. But at the time these views appeared eccentric, provocative and certainly harmless. At first, Izvestiya was free enough to allow some criticism of government policy; but after barely six months, Soldatov and Borogan were squeezed out by increasing demands to toe the Putinist line. As they arrived at the office to clear their desks, they noticed a new employee – a nondescript, secretive man with no media experience. Just ten years after the 1991 putsch, the security services were back on the editorial floor. Moving from publication to publication, the pair found ways to get into print for most of the next decade. In the unlikely pages of Versia, the offshoot of an unscrupulous tabloid called Sovershchenno Sekretno (Completely Secret), they published an exposé of the official account of the Nord-Ost crisis, in which hundreds of hostages trapped in a theatre by Chechen suicide bombers were gassed by the security services. The FSB responded by harassing them and the paper for months, and this set a pattern. Subsequent employers crumpled under pressure from above. Each time the pair published a too-truthful report they'd be out on the street again. For some years, interestingly, the principle that the press should act as a check on state power still held true among their 'dear friends' from Izvestiya days, who helped them get articles printed. And for a while both Akopov and Krutikov were even happy to cooperate with Soldatov and Borogan on the website they'd set up, providing analysis and comment on Russia's security and intelligence services. In 2008, the authors' efforts to investigate the murder of their colleague Anna Politkovskaya got them sacked from their final paper. Bravely, they clung on in Moscow, writing books for PublicAffairs, their New York publisher, that were later translated into Russian. 'It felt as if we and our friends had discovered some sort of arrangement whereby we could coexist with the country's political regime.' One day, the liberals hoped, Putin would be gone and things would return to 'normal'. Their Izvestiya friends, meanwhile, had gone a different route, straight to the heart of the regime. By 2014, Baranov was a presenter for Channel 1, the Kremlin propaganda channel, pushing a narrative of Nazis in Ukraine and Nato aggression, while his wife crossed the barely discernible line between state and press to become deputy minister of culture the following year. Akopov is now known as the author of a triumphalist essay, published in February 2022: 'Putin has resolved the Ukrainian question.' It was swiftly removed from the internet when the Ukrainians stopped the Russian army outside Kyiv. All three are subject to sanctions. Why did these intelligent, well-travelled people agree to be the mouthpieces for state misinformation? Basically it was their only option if they wanted to stay in Russia and work as journalists. Financial need and family and health pressures weighed on them, as on anyone, and general lawlessness and corruption in Russia encourage conformity in all but the bravest. The emotional hangover of the Soviet Union is also considerable – nostalgia for the USSR's former status, the certainties of their childhood and family trauma working themselves out in complicated ways. Perhaps even more significant is another Soviet legacy – a profound cynicism that reasserted itself, as powerfully as ever, once Putin's direction was clear. Many of the propagandists are connected to Soviet dynasties such as the Mikhalkovs, who seem quite comfortable with telling lies in return for success and comfort. Trying to gauge the views of ordinary Muscovites, Soldatov and Borodan noted a collective determination to enjoy this rare moment of Russian prosperity without rocking the boat. Their interviewees often clammed up, snapping: 'We just want to trust our security services!' Yet almost before people had noticed, the Russia they knew had been transformed 'from a highly globalised and aspirational society to a dismal walled-in fortress'. In a flash, the moment when they could have chosen another future had passed.
Daily Mirror
9 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Putin's soldiers drag Ukrainian prisoner to death behind motorbike in sick video
Ukrainian officials have condemned the disturbing footage as a blatant war crime by Russia, demanding action from the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross Sickening new footage has emerged showing a Ukrainian prisoner of war being dragged to his death behind a Russian military motorbike - a harrowing display of brutality that has sparked international outrage. The chilling video, which is not being shared due to its horrific content, allegedly captures the defenceless captive hogtied and lashed to the back of a motorbike with rope. The grainy aerial clip shows the moment two Russian soldiers - one driving and the other positioning the man - prepare for the cruel act on a deserted road in occupied territory. Moments later, the bike roars into motion, pulling the prisoner behind it along the tarmac. The exact location of the atrocity remains unconfirmed, but Ukrainian officials have condemned the act as a blatant war crime. Dmytro Lubinets, Ukraine 's human rights commissioner, said: 'A video is being circulated on social media: it shows a man tied to a motorcycle and dragged along the road. This is demonstrative cruelty and another war crime by the Russian Federation.' Lubinets has contacted both the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, demanding action. If verified, the incident would constitute a 'gross violation' of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. ' Russia is acting like a terrorist state,' Lubinets added. 'And it must bear fair responsibility for every crime.' According to Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office, as of May 23, authorities are investigating 75 separate cases involving the murder of 268 prisoners of war by Russian forces since the full-scale invasion began. The latest horror is one of many incidents involving the torture and killing of Ukrainian PoWs. In January, a group of Russian troops were filmed executing six Ukrainian PoWs in cold blood. One of the killers was heard saying: 'This one's mine,' before demanding: 'Give me two machine guns.' Kyiv launched a formal investigation and alerted international bodies. In another shocking episode last October, nine Ukrainian drone operators were stripped to their underwear and shot dead by Russian forces. The entire execution was filmed. This week, a Ukrainian former prisoner said Kremlin soldiers burned the words 'Glory to Russia' on his abdomen in a barbaric act of torture. Andriy Pereverzev said he was captured in February 2024 on the battlefield after being severely wounded. Once in the custody, he said Putin's fighters electrocuted him in his open wound, seeking to extract any useful intelligence and burned the words 'Glory to Russia' onto his stomach. 'I lifted my head just to look at my stomach,' he said. 'And there it was. 'Glory to Russia.' Burned into my skin with a medical cautery tool.'
