I do not accept my guilt and consider the criminal case against me a form of banal revenge by angry siloviki [“strong men” - law enforcement, military, security service personnel]. In the article in question, I put the responsibility for the explosion in Arkhangelsk at their feet. I wrote that the repressive state has finally got a reaction. That the cruel law enforcement policies makes citizens meaner. That when legal routes are blocked, protest energy is pushed into this socially dangerous path.

If you aren’t afraid, publish this quote:

“A strong state. A strong president, a strong governor. This is a country where the power belongs to those who are strong, the siloviki.

The generation of the Arkhangelsk bomber grew up in this atmosphere. They know that you can’t go to protests - they’ll be dispersed, you might get beaten up and then convicted. They know that you can be punished for holding a single picket. They see that you can join only a certain range of political parties without fear, and that you can say only a certain range of opinions freely. This generation learned by example that you can’t get justice in a court. The judge just approves a decision that the police have ordered.

Over many years, the limitation of political and civic freedoms has created not only an unfree state, but a repressive state in Russia. A state that is unsafe and scary to come into contact with.”

I still believe this is true. Moreover, in my view, the state has only confirmed my earlier hypotheses in conducting this criminal case against me:

“To punish. To prove your guilt and convict you, this is their only task. They only need the smallest, even formal hook in order to drag an individual into the grindstones of the legal system.”

I did not justify terrorism. I analysed the reasons behind the terrorist attack in Arkhangelsk. I tried to understand why a young man - who had his whole life ahead of him - decided to kill himself in this suicide-attack. Perhaps I made a mistake when I reconstructed his motives - and it’d be good if I did! - but no one has proven that. Accusation instead of discussion - this is a rather primitive and rough position. It’s a fist in the face instead of responding to a comment.

It’s a fist in the face of every journalist in our country.

You can’t know beforehand which exact words or the order in which they’re placed, will offend your average silovik, endowed with power. They called an opinion a crime. They are making a criminal out of a person who was simply doing their job.

According to this principle, you can make up a criminal case out of any more or less controversial text. It’s enough to find “experts” who can sign the “expert analysis” that the investigators need. With this in mind, would you take on a problematic topic? Would you ask questions that will most likely send the authorities crazy? Would you decide to expose a silovik if they were involved in a crime?

The criminal case against me is the murder of freedom of speech. With my example in mind, dozens and hundreds of other journalists won’t come forward with the truth promptly.