The Russian invasion of Ukraine marked a pivotal moment in international relations, sparking outrage and condemnation from the global community while igniting deep-rooted tensions that had been simmering for decades. The invasion, which began in the early days of 2022, cast a dark shadow over the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Russian forces advanced, cities and towns across Ukraine were transformed into battlefields, with civilians caught in the crossfire and their lives altered by the devastating consequences of war.

In 77 Days of February, a group of distinguished writers from Reporters Magazine, the only Ukrainian publication dedicated to long-form literary journalism, present a remarkably powerful collection of 24 personal narratives. The anthology aims to give readers unprecedented access to first-hand accounts of the atrocities suffered during the early days of the invasion.

It also serves as a tribute to the indomitable spirit and fortitude of the Ukrainian people, who continue to demonstrate unwavering strength and pride in the face of adversity. Marichka Paplauskaite, editor-in-chief of Reporters Magazine, joins us for an interview about 77 Days of February and her accounts of enduring the war as a Ukrainian journalist.

Q. At the beginning of the book there is an emphasis on why it is important to talk about the war in Ukraine from the beginning, with a reference to memory being unreliable. Would you like to share that with our readers?

The initial months of the war presented a profoundly challenging period for us. My colleagues and I felt an overwhelming urge to contribute to the cause of our country, and given our writing skills, we set out to create narratives. The primary goal of our magazine, Reporters, was to tell the story of Ukraine through the lens of personal stories, moving away from traditional hard news and focusing on the encounters, sentiments and emotions of individuals. So when the war broke out, our choice was clear: to share these stories first with fellow Ukrainians and then with a global audience.

This book carries an intense emotional weight, because it was simply not possible to discuss this subject without emotion. It encompasses our homeland and our own firsthand encounters. At first, we wondered if it was premature to delve into such intimate experiences. However, as the war continues and the timing of victory is uncertain, we decided to tackle the subject now, while the wounds are still raw.

Human memory is indeed very fragile, especially when it comes to traumatic events. The mind tries to forget events that have caused suffering. That’s why what we have managed to capture in texts about the events and memories of the first months of the war seems very important to me.

Q. What has changed between the beginning of the war and now?

We have been living under the conditions of a full-scale war for a year and a half now. It’s unfortunate to admit it, but we have managed to get accustomed to the war. In our cities, we still hear the air raid siren every day, which always means that Russian missiles or Iranian drones used by Russia are heading towards our territory to commit new acts of violence against innocent people. Nevertheless, under these circumstances we continue our work and try to live, adapting to the conditions of war.

Q. As a journalist, you’ve had the opportunity to interact with various individuals impacted by the war, is there a story that was particularly inspiring to you?

It’s hard for me to say which story impressed me the most. Because all the stories in the book are incredibly personal. There is one change that happened to us journalists at the beginning of the war: we became the heroes of our own texts. For instance, there are two stories about Chernihiv by our author Vira Kuriko. Her husband went off to fight, and she returned twice to the city surrounded by Russians, describing the life of people under siege.

Another story is “Pasha and the Old Man” by Olga Omelyanchuk. Her acquaintance overheard a phone conversation in a basement. Someone was talking about a paralyzed old man whose relatives had left him in a flat in Irpin. At the time, fierce street battles were raging in the town. Olga found soldiers who agreed to find the old man and evacuate him. It was a risky operation. But the soldiers managed to navigate the streets where gunfire echoed and rescue the man. I am struck by the humanity of this story. It shows an example of how one can remain human even in times of war.

Another story I would like to mention is titled “The Sea”. It tells the story of fishermen from the Kiev Sea – a vast reservoir. Villages on one bank were occupied by Russians in the early days, while on the other bank there was a fishing base. In times of peace these men would have been considered poachers, but in times of war they became heroes. They would cross the sea in their boats and rescue people from the occupation. This was dangerous because the sea was still covered with ice and the Russians were shelling the boats. Nevertheless, these fishermen risked their lives to save others.

As you can see, these stories depict not only the horrors of war, but also courage, compassion, desperation, and light.

Q. How has covering these stories affected you? Have you had the space to reflect on your own grief?

When we were working on these stories, we had to prepare everything so quickly that we had no time to think. But afterwards I had some time to think and I realized that it’s not about the stories, it’s about the lessons I learned during the war and during my work as a journalist and editor living in Ukraine.

We feel that we must live now; if you want to do something, do it today. If you want to tell someone you love them, tell them today. It’s not only because of the conditions of our personal lives during the war in general, but also because there are many stories, for example about nameless graves, that remind us to appreciate what we have.

Q. What struggles do you face bringing these stories to a global audience?

It was so important for us to share our work with readers abroad because we are afraid that the war will be normalized, as I mentioned before. We still need support, and I absolutely understand that people abroad can lose interest in the war in Ukraine and think, “Well, it’s news from Ukraine again. But for us, it’s a real and ongoing tragedy, all the time, in every town.

We want people to not just read the stories, but to empathize and think about how they would feel and act in that situation. And I hope that through these stories our readers can form an emotional connection with Ukraine. I think the biggest challenge is that it’s incredibly difficult to comprehend the experience of war unless you’ve been through it. I’ve read numerous books about different conflicts around the world. But when it came to war in my own country, I wasn’t prepared.

War is the worst experience one can have. Our subconscious can block the desire to understand this experience because it’s too painful. That’s why I hope that the stories in the book, which are very emotional and personal, will give foreign readers a chance to somewhat grasp our reality.

Q. Could you tell us about networks of collaborations amongst journalists at this time?

Our team isn’t large; besides editors, we only have two full-time correspondents. However, we have a large pool of freelance authors across the country. When the war started, they all reported to me about the stories they were witnessing and wanted to describe. It was a unique time of unity for all citizens, and journalists were no exception. We worked as a single team, driven by the importance of documenting events of historic magnitude, recording the crimes of the Russians, and capturing new pages in Ukrainian history. It was a time of solidarity and professional unity within the journalistic community.

Q. How has misinformation made life more difficult for the Ukrainian people during the war?

Personally, I haven’t found this to be a problematic issue because we don’t watch or rely on Russian propaganda TV channels or anything of that sort. If we come across something that raises suspicion or doubt, we check it out. Sometimes, when we come across something dubious, we instinctively recognize its lack of credibility. We make sure to verify and re-verify; after all, we have colleagues in all regions of Ukraine.

For instance, when a Russian propaganda channel tried to dismiss the atrocities in Bucha as a hoax and labeled the alleged victims as actors, my colleagues and friends were in Bucha. They witnessed the bodies on the streets, took videos and photographs that unequivocally confirmed the reality of the situation. Russian propaganda doesn’t shake us because we are here, on the ground, witnessing everything first hand.

Q. What important remarks would you like to share with our readers?

The main message I want to convey is that the war is an ongoing reality and our struggle persists. Readers may peruse the accounts documented within the 77 Days of February and recognize the tragedies and turmoil depicted, but they have the privilege of closing the book and returning to their daily lives. The reality we face, however, remains unchanged, with analogous stories unfolding every day across Ukraine. Our need for support continues.

On the morning of May 11, 2022, an Israeli sniper shot and killed prominent Palestinian journalist and Aljazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank city of Jenin. In an open area, she was shot below her ear, while wearing her press gear and helmet, clearly marking her as a journalist. At the same time, Ali Al-Samoudi, a long-time Aljazeera producer, was shot in the back. The group of Palestinian journalists were in Jenin to cover yet another Israeli incursion.

As part of its damage control policy, the Israeli army, initially said it “neutralized two terrorists,” then changed its narrative to say Palestinian fighters were in the area. Israeli accounts on social media claimed that Abu Akleh was killed by Palestinian fighters—a narrative reminiscent of the killing of Palestinian Muhammed Al-Durra, 11, in 2000, by the Israeli army, an incident that shook the world and was caught on camera by brave journalists such as Abu Akleh. The Israeli army then too claimed that Al-Durra was was killed in his father’s elbow by ammunition fired by Palestinian forces nearby.

Palestinian journalists who were next to Abu Akleh, including Al-Samoudi, who is currently in hospital receiving care, refuted the Israeli narrative, adding that the fact that she was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper reveals that her killing was intentional. Following Abu Akleh’s death, Palestinian priests prepared the body for the funeral.

Thousands of Palestinians carried the body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag and with her vest resting on her, and marched in Jenin refugee camp. Abu Akleh will be buried in her native city of Jerusalem. Israel’s killing of Abu Akleh has resonated with millions of people across the Arab world who had followed her 24-year-long coverage of events in Palestine, sending shock waves and condemnations across the region.

Aljazeera network has condemned the murder of its prominent journalist in a statement, adding, “We hold the Israeli authorities responsible for the safety of Al Jazeera producer Ali Al-Samoudi, who was targeted with colleague Shireen by shooting him in the back during his coverage and he is undergoing treatment.”

Shatta Hanarsha, a journalist and a friend of Abu Akleh, who was with her when she was fatally shot told Aljazeera, “A group of journalists were in Jenin refugee camp. We were in an open space so that the Israeli occupation forces could see us clearly. The four of us were wearing our press gears. There were no clashes or gunmen in the area. In front of us were Israeli snipers and behind us was an Israeli wall. First, Ali Al-Samoudi was shot and Shireen started screaming. Then, Shireen was injured, and they intentionally shot at us, and their intention was to kill us as they continued shooting even after Shireen was injured.”

Talking about the intifada, these are her words, “I will not forget that death was near us, we could not go home. We held cameras and crossed military checkpoints and slept in hospitals to carry out our job … in 2002. Despite danger, we continued our work. I chose journalism so that I could be close to humans. I will not change reality, but at least I was able to convey that voice to the world, I am Shireen Abu Akleh…” The murder of Abu Akleh was shocking, but it comes as no surprise as Israel has killed 46 Palestinian journalists since 2000.

Abu Akleh was also known for her coverage of the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, gaining popularity beyond Palestine across the years. She also covered the 2008/9, 2012, 2014, and 2021 Israeli wars on Gaza. Being a native of Jerusalem, she followed Israel’s ongoing violations against the Palestinians, and covered different Palestinian uprisings in the city from Bab Al-Amoud to Sheikh Jarrah and Israel’s repeated incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque.

By killing Abu Akleh, Israel wants to send yet another message to the Palestinian people and their supporters across the globe that no one is safe. Israeli snipers, who killed Palestinian journalist Yasser Murtaja on April 6, 2018, knew well that they will get away with this murder, as they have with thousands of murders of Palestinians. Aljazeera network said it will take legal action and pursue all possible means to bring those responsible for the crime to justice. The response of the international community, which so far has been limited to condemnation, will ultimately determine whether the perpetrators will be brought to justice.

Palestinian journalists on the ground play an important role as they take the lead in conveying the decades-long struggle of the Palestinian people against their Israeli oppressors. Now, it is the responsibility of the world to take action to stop the non-ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and more importantly, its war against civilians including journalists, who seem to be so threatening to Israeli forces that snipers shoot at them daily in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian journalists’ responsibility now is to forge forward in the spirit of Abu Akleh’s work: to continue honest reporting and have the courage to convey the message of those whose voice would otherwise go unheard due to the bias of the international community and mainstream media outlets.

These mainstream media outlets still think that the Palestinian people, who will mark the 74th anniversary of the Nakba on May 15, 2022, are still unworthy of media coverage or international solidarity. Exposing this misconception and grave injustice will force the Israeli government, whose shameful behavior was once again manifested in the horrific killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, to change its policies premised on superiority and apartheid.

Russia’s “foreign agent” law has provoked a serious debate in the country and abroad – and for good reason. As it is amended on a regular basis, there are new interpretations of the “foreign agent” definition and new categories of legal entities and persons that could become potential targets of the legislation from mass media outlets to ordinary Russian citizens.

A recent update of the “foreign agents” list published by the Russian Ministry of Justice on October 8, 2021, has added twelve more legal entities and citizens bringing the total number of personae non gratae to 85. But are things on the ground as bad as they are on paper? As a former journalist of Russian state-controlled media, Russia Today, and a current independent political and economic observer, I’ve looked at both sides of the coin and tried to provide an objective overview of this controversial law.

“They started it”

It all started in 2017 when the U.S. branch of RT (former Russia Today) media outlet was forced to register as a foreign agent under FARA law. RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said this decision was the only choice to keep RT operating. “Our lawyers say that if we don’t register as a foreign agent, the director of our company in America could be arrested, and the accounts of the company could be seized. In short, in this situation the company would not be able to work. Between those consequences and registering as a foreign agent, we are forced to choose registration,” she said.

Shortly after the U.S. requirement, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked the State Duma to prepare a “mirror response.” The result was the law which was supposed to enable the Russian Ministry of Justice to force some (at first only) foreign media outlets to enter the register and mark their materials with a specific note. The adopted bill had nothing to do with Russian media outlets at all and was a response to the U.S. pressure on RT.

Common sense and absurdity

However, one year after another, the bill was amended. While its main target – the foreign media outlets – had to register as legal entities in Russia to be able to report to the Russian Ministry of Justice, the law now also applies to individual journalists and bloggers who receive funding from “foreign agent” organizations or third parties affiliated with them.

The amendments raised a serious debate across media circles while international organizations like Amnesty International and the OSCE claimed the law was a violation of fundamental human rights. The latest version of the law also applies to Russian media outlets and journalists that are suspected of receiving funds from “foreign agents” or parties affiliated with them — a move that has provoked outrage among Russian media outlets, mainly among those supporting the opposition.

In Russia’s “mirror version” law, there are specific definitions of who exactly and under which circumstances can be placed under the “foreign agent” label, while there is a very specific description of the “foreign agent’s political activity.”

Yet, the Russian “foreign agent” law is also far from being perfect and requires revisions. Being amended in order to control the activity of foreign media outlets based in Russia and to suppress any foreign interventions in the national political elections system, its targets could be ordinary citizens who intentionally or unintentionally post provocative content on social media or support “foreign agent” organizations or people, or take part in activities where “foreign agents” are noticed.

Media at risk

The biggest concern of the Russian “foreign agent” law is, of course, expressed by journalists and media outlets. Once labeled a “foreign agent,” the company is limited in its commercial and advertisement activities, which are often the main source of income for most media outlets in Russia.

According to Dmitriy Migalin, a former political journalist of the Russian federal media outlet which is likely to get the “foreign agent” status, the game rules are not transparent.

“Everyone is aware that any media platform could get this unwanted status. On the one hand, it is banding together all journalists and media community like never before, even competitors: today it is them, tomorrow it will be us, we are all on the same boat after all. But on the other hand, the reaction of key investors of a media outlet is highly unpredictable nowadays. Everyone is afraid of shams and unexpected foreign cash inflows to an outlet’s account. As ironic as it may seem, all responsibility is on accounting departments: one ‘accidental’ thousand-dollar inflow not returned in time may get an entity a ‘foreign agent’ status,” adds Migalin.