The Rototom Social Forum in Benicàssim was marked by a controversial moment that centered on support for Julian Assange, the Australian programmer, during the festival. While some speakers raised strong voices in his defense, others attracted attention for their stances on contemporary geopolitics. One guest, a former deputy, drew particular notice for remarks aligned with the positions of Russia’s leadership, sparking debate among attendees and observers. The discussion also touched on the broader stance of the 5 Star Movement toward President Vladimir Putin, with one participant clarifying that while he has expressed praise for the Russian president, this should not be read as unconditional allegiance to all of Putin’s policies. He insisted that his remarks do not amount to endorsing a Putinist position, and he urged a focus on policy choices rather than personal loyalties, including a critical view of arming Ukraine.
The speaker defended past praise for the Russian president by explaining his earlier reasoning. He noted that his positions at the time were shaped by events in the Middle East and the conduct of Western powers in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. He described the human cost of these conflicts as deeply tragic, and he suggested that Western actions during those periods influenced his views. The Syrian civil war, which began with a popular uprising in 2011, has led to enormous suffering. Independent human rights organizations estimate thousands of civilian deaths, with many casualties attributed to regime forces and, at times, to foreign military intervention. The broader picture involves multiple actors, including non-state groups, all contributing to a volatile and deadly conflict that has reached far beyond Syria’s borders.
Questions arose about how this individual’s travels to Russia and his meetings with senior Russian officials fit with his media interviews and participation in private forums. He argued for the protection of press freedom as a universal right, insisting that critics should distinguish between living in a country and reporting on it. He pointed out the double standards that can emerge when European politicians highlight issues impacting Assange and Wikileaks, suggesting that the same concerns would receive more attention if the subject involved a Russian journalist or a scandal unfolding there.
Observations from Russia and past policy debates
During his time in Russia, he contended, the aim was to understand the political environment and the media landscape, especially in the wake of Ukraine’s crisis. He asserted that the Russian public has a particular worldview, and that many journalists in Europe could benefit from firsthand exposure to Russian perspectives, which he argued often contradicts Western narratives. Although he did not revisit every controversial statement about Crimea or other historical moments, he acknowledged that the context in which those statements were made deserves careful consideration. Looking back at coordination with Russian diplomatic channels, he recalled past requests to obtain votes on constitutional reforms and other political actions that generated significant discussion in Italian politics at the time.
The collective stance at the forum showed a broad solidarity with Assange, emphasizing the importance of free press coverage of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Speakers argued that continuing the campaign is essential to ensuring fair treatment and due process, particularly in relation to extradition considerations. They portrayed Assange as a symbol of journalistic independence and a check on executive power. The session included contributions from other notable voices who joined the discussion remotely, reflecting the ongoing international interest in Wikileaks and the evolving debate over information transparency and national security.