Growing up, I never imagined myself working as a journalist, let alone for one of the world’s leading wire services; however, I ended up doing exactly that for Sputnik – one of Russia’s news agencies – from April 2021 to October 2024. My time at Sputnik was not at all like most Americans would expect, nor like what they may have heard from government officials and the mainstream media. Indeed, the fact that it was a free and lively newsroom full of hard-working and sincere journalists might be the very reason that the Biden administration forced an end to its work in the United States last week.
I have long been fascinated by Russia’s peculiar history, vibrant culture, and rich language, leading me to earn a degree in Russian and Political Science from the University of Montana in December 2019. After graduating, I traveled to Siberia to teach English and explore the mysterious “Russian Soul” that great authors like Fyodor Dostoevsky described. Sadly, my adventures there were cut short by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted me to return to the United States.
I later enrolled in a master’s program at one of Russia’s top universities, the Higher School of Economics, but the program was conducted remotely like many others at the time. The nine-hour time difference also made the experience less than enjoyable and eventually led me to start searching for a job in April 2021. It was during this time that I ran across an open position at Sputnik. I applied, not thinking much of it, and was offered the job shortly thereafter.
Although I did not initially consider journalism as a career path, in hindsight, it perfectly suits me. The dynamic environment, constant research, and consequential nature of the work provided more satisfaction and demanded more attentiveness than any previous job. Moreover, it seemed to me like a prime opportunity to bolster ties between the United States and Russia—both the governments and the people. So much of what Russians and Americans think about each other is influenced by our respective media, and Sputnik was in the unique position of having large audiences in the United States and Russia alike.
The United States has had a contentious relationship with Russia and the Soviet Union, but it was not always that way. Even though the Russian Empire remained officially neutral during the American Revolution, Catherine the Great helped our Founding Fathers by denying Great Britain’s requests for military assistance and urging peace talks. The countries remained largely amicable during much of the 19th century, but wariness grew after Americans learned about pogroms, the Siberian exile system, and later, the Bolsheviks’ rise to power.
Despite fighting alongside one another during the Second World War, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union peaked during the subsequent Cold War. The threat of nuclear war loomed large over both populations for decades, but diminished after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Although it briefly appeared like the “end of history” had arrived, the prospect of direct conflict between the United States and Russia reemerged after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, strengthened after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and has nearly become reality in the wake of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
I had been working at Sputnik for less than a year when Russia began its so-called special military operation in Ukraine. Naturally, I had to reconsider my future at the news agency. Even though I understood the underlying causes of the conflict, I detested it as an adamant non-interventionist. As much as I can recognize the reasoning behind the invasion and the Putin regime’s authoritarian tendencies, the libertarian in me cannot sincerely support it.
However, Sputnik’s slogan – Telling the Untold – echoed through my mind. I knew that the US government and most of the mainstream media would shift into war propaganda mode, framing the whole situation out of context and with overwhelming bias. Again, as a non-interventionist, and an American, I could not stand by while the United States raced unimpeded towards a direct and potentially nuclear conflict with Russia.
This was exactly the sort of moment where someone with a sincere desire to make a difference in US-Russia relations could shine, if even in a small way. I wanted to play a part in making sure that the reporting from Sputnik’s side was accurate and that we were fairly covering the actions of Russia, the United States, and its allies alike. I concluded that I had a responsibility to continue reporting for Sputnik, as someone who is critical of Russia’s aggression, the West’s provocation, and escalation on either side. I hoped that the connections I made and the small influence I wielded could keep both sides honest and communicative. I like to think I succeeded.
Sure, it was annoying to have to follow legal mandates like calling the invasion a “special military operation” and noting when a mentioned entity was banned in Russia, but 99% of the time, we had as much independence as any newsroom out there. Reporters pitched a variety of stories and brought a true diversity of opinion to the team – a heterodoxy that I would consider unrivaled by almost any other outlet. One valuable trait that we all brought to the table was a healthy skepticism of both government officials and other media sources. Our limited access to press briefings and other chances to question officials meant that we did not hold back our reporting in fear of losing a source or reputation in the briefing room; indeed, we already had little to lose.
My own commitment to truth also helped keep Sputnik and Russian officials accurate. I regularly notified editors of syntactic or semantic errors of importance, which were often fixed with haste. On a couple of occasions, I helped notify Russian officials that they were (inadvertently or not) sharing deepfakes, prompting the officials to take them down. I never faced retaliation for my efforts, which were usually met with appreciation, or at worst, annoyance.
I will affirm that editors never asked me to engage in any activity that could be described as an influence or misinformation operation, nor did I ever witness them ask any other reporter to do so. Although I cannot speak for the highest echelons of the organization, all the reporters and editors I know were solid people with integrity and good intentions. Unfortunately, this perspective was not shared by the Biden administration.
The crackdown on Russian media was unsurprising, and in fact, a long time coming. Various European governments had already targeted outlets like Sputnik and RT due to the conflict in Ukraine, alleging that we were engaging in information warfare on behalf of the Russian government. Some writers were even barred from viewing our own Telegram channels because of such restrictions. The United States also has a recent history of punishing media tied to adversaries, including the Trump administration’s designation of four Chinese outlets as foreign missions.
On October 15, 2024, Sputnik’s US-based management team informed us that the organization was forced to cease operations immediately on the advice of lawyers. A series of sanctions imposed in September put all of us, including American citizens, at risk of fines and imprisonment if we continued to work for Sputnik. In other words, the US government used the threat of punishment to restrict citizens’ ability to practice legitimate journalism in association with a foreign country.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but I have serious concerns about the measure as it relates to the First Amendment. The sanctions may not have specifically or even intentionally restricted freedom of the press and association, but such restrictions are nevertheless a consequence of the sanctions regime on Russia. But why exactly would the Biden administration want to stop Sputnik from fulfilling its mission of Telling the Untold?
The United States’ commitment to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and indeed, freedom writ large, is being tested by the potential collapse of its decades-long hegemony on the world stage. Rapid developments in the public relations informational complex – namely the rise of mass internet access, social media platforms, and alternative media – have prompted the US government to take efforts to combat “misinformation” and “malign foreign influence” in alleged furtherance of the public good.
Such efforts are specifically intended to maintain a positive perception of the domestic regime and a negative perception of geopolitical rivals like Russia, China, and Iran. The United States wages not only indirect proxy wars on the ground, but also direct informational wars in the noosphere: the planetary layer of reason, thought, and communication.
Much of this infowar revolves around maintaining metanarratives about the “rules-based international order” led by the United States and its allies, in hopes of propping up Atlanticist hegemony. Mainstream media, alternative media, and foreign media outlets like Sputnik are all players, or perhaps just pawns, in this conflict to varying degrees. However, journalists ought not to be punished for the geopolitical implications of their reporting, so long as what they are reporting is the truth. I and many others at Sputnik were legitimate journalists whose reporting was at times troublesome to US interests, but unlike its adversaries, the United States claims to protect freedom of speech and the press.
I started at Sputnik years ago in hopes of helping to build a bridge between Americans and Russians – the sort of bridge that could help stave off World War Three. The Biden administration blew up that bridge in a direct attack on freedom of the press.
Regardless, I am confident that truth will prevail in the end. Coincidentally, the Russian movie Brother 2 has an excellent quote on the matter:
I think that power is in truth. Those with truth are more powerful. Here you have cheated someone and made money. And for what? Have you become stronger? No, you haven’t, because there is not truth behind you. But the one who is deceived, behind him is the truth, meaning he is more powerful.
There is truth in telling the untold and making an earnest effort to build positive ties between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. So, I know that I am ultimately more powerful than the government that shuts down pesky newsrooms like Sputnik.
The Biden administration may have stopped me from telling the untold in association with Russia, but they will have to be much bolder if they wish to stop me from doing so as an everyday American. All they have accomplished is motivating me to challenge the regime even harder on issues related to freedom of speech and sincere diplomacy. Those who are most willing to criticize the West’s present iteration are often those who care most about its future. I did not work for Sputnik because I hate the United States, but rather, because I love it.
Ethan Charles Holmes is an experienced reporter with an academic background in Russian culture, history, and politics. He is a regular commentator on foreign policy and advocate for non-interventionism. You can follow him on X @the_posts or email him at ethan.ch.holmes@gmail.com.
