“Thanks to my country for saving me,” wrote Russian journalist Julia Yuzik on her Facebook. So it became clear: the nightly news was really true, Julia’s weekly captivity in an Iranian prison was over, she returned to Moscow.
Let me remind you that on October 2, Yulia Yuzik was detained at a hotel in Tehran by members of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps. She managed to make one call home and say that she’s sitting on the concrete floor in the cell, she is accused of collaborating with the Israeli secret services and faces ten years in prison.
I myself am familiar with Julia Yuzik more than a cap: once met in a common company. Moreover, Yuzik cannot be called part of any “Moscow journalistic party”. She worked in Komsomolskaya Pravda, then wrote the book “Brides of Allah”, where she tried to figure out how women in the Caucasus became martyrs, then, with the support of “Open Russia” Khodorkovsky and the Parnas party, she ran for the 2016 State Duma elections in the Republic of Dagestan and lost. In recent years, according to some reports, she collaborated with some Iranian media (with which specifically it is unclear). Surely there are people who share the views of Yuzik, there are those who do not share them, there are those who, as the author of this text, have only the most vague idea of them. These days I specially read the book of Yuzik, “Brides of Allah,” which the ultra-patriots have already called almost the main tool to justify terrorism. I did not find justification for terrorism there.
Yuzik, like many journalists, tried to figure out what was pushing young women to explode, and concluded that, as a rule, either husbands or immediate relatives who sold their relatives for “live meat” were behind the recruitment. Yes, it is obvious that Yusik holds opposition views. And all this did not matter this week.
The rescue of Julia Yuzik from an Iranian prison (let's be honest: the place is not the highest in the ranking of world prisons) is already ironically compared with the operation "Saving Private Ryan" - so different people rushed to her aid. On the very first day, as the information appeared, the Russian Foreign Ministry joined. Both Moscow and the Russian embassy in Iran gave public comments every day about what was done, broadcasting more and more new versions of the Iranians about what had happened, and they ranged from “visa issues will be released soon” to “information about the imminent release is not confirmed” .
At the same time, the Iranian ambassador to Russia, going to work, saw activists of various kinds under the windows of the embassy - from Yulia’s relatives to journalists demanding: “Freedom of Yuliya Yuzik.” There was a petition with signatures and public appeals by media people, sometimes accompanied by preambles: “I would never have thought that we were doing one thing with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but ...”
Finally, when “The Kremlin condemns the Yuzik detention” was heard, it became clear that the battle would be won.
Of course, the campaign in support of Yuzik did not cover the whole country from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka, this would be an exaggeration. But the fact that it was precisely the “country” that saved Julia would not be an exaggeration.
Before a large-scale exchange of detainees between Russia and Ukraine took place, in which our colleague, the head of RIA Novosti Kirill Vyshinsky, also caught an important contrast, and it was rather inconvenient for the Russians. It is for the Russians, and not for the Kremlin. In support of Sentsov, Ukrainian sailors, everyone else in Kiev, actions were regularly held, they were supported by the foreign diaspora. In Russia, the campaign in support of the exchange was essentially reduced to the campaign in support of ... Ukrainians, who, of course, turned out to be more “their own” for the “Moscow media party” than Vyshinsky himself. The contenders for the “voice of the conscience of the nation” regarded their fellow citizens rather as a convenient tool in order to return “their” to Kiev. It was very embarrassing.
The story of Yulia Yuzik in this regard began to turn the chessboard over. Her release was dealt with by people of various views, who would not at all then be obliged to give hands to each other at a meeting. They are united by only one thing: these people are citizens of Russia and they fought for the freedom of a citizen of Russia.
Yes, of course, some cheer patriots grumbled and even demanded “to leave the oppositionist to rot in prison,” but somehow it quickly became clear that this position did not cause public sympathy and remained the lot of marginals, because in essence it was equal to the position to demand release Ukrainians and leave in prison "Russian aggressors."
Moreover, the practice of public campaigns shows that they lead to success only in one case - when the very unification of the efforts of people of different views and opportunities occurs. Someone writes petitions, someone runs to stand with posters, someone at this time will call the authorities, high and not very high, include the question in analytical notes and, as they say, "run around the offices." Only in the presence of such a combination does the issue acquire sufficient importance in order to make it clear: it is necessary to solve it.
I would like the salvation of our today's ordinary Ryan-Yusik not to remain just one of the small stories of the end of 2019, but that the salvors themselves understand the important. The most important thing for a Russian citizen is the fate of Russian citizens. Then we will sort things out among ourselves and agree. There are no foreign citizens of their own country, because a Russian citizen means already his own. And you can’t leave your own under any circumstances.
Julia Yuzik writes that she was brought to the special hall for departures from an Iranian prison with a blindfold. Then the mask was pulled off, and she saw a representative of the Russian embassy. You can’t get into someone else’s head, but I think that this very Russian official, who hardly had anything in common with her views, was definitely her own.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.