Support us
The Black Sea is often presented as a distant strategic theatre, yet its history shapes security, identity and political power far beyond its shoreline. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not begin with a blank map. It draws on older imperial claims, administrative practices and narratives that have repeatedly been used to deny the sovereignty of neighbouring peoples.
This is why Free Press Foundation is funding a series on the history of Russian imperialism in the Black Sea region. The project will connect archival research with reporting, interviews and analysis from journalists who understand the communities involved. Its purpose is to make complex history accessible without reducing it to slogans.
For audiences in Australia, the subject has a direct relevance. Australians know how debates about national identity, colonial history and regional security can influence public life, from Canberra policy discussions to conversations in Melbourne’s Ukrainian community. Historical literacy helps people recognise when political language is being used to disguise expansionism.
Independent journalism is essential to that work. Newsrooms working under pressure need time to verify documents, consult local experts and challenge official versions of events. Funding gives reporters the capacity to investigate the past carefully while showing how it continues to affect the present.
The Black Sea links Ukraine, Georgia, Türkiye, Bulgaria and Romania, while connecting Europe to the Caucasus and Central Asia. Ports such as Odesa, Sevastopol and Batumi have carried trade, migration and military power for centuries. Control of this region has brought influence over shipping routes, food exports and access to wider seas.
Russian imperial expansion changed borders and institutions across the area. It also imposed official histories that portrayed conquest as natural, protective or civilising. A serious series must examine these claims alongside the experiences of Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians, Georgians and other communities whose voices were marginalised.
Imperial rule is maintained through armies, laws and economic pressure, but it also relies on stories. Claims that a neighbouring nation lacks a genuine history or belongs within a larger “civilisational” space can prepare an audience to accept coercion. Understanding authoritarian government traits helps readers see how propaganda, censorship and concentrated power reinforce one another.
Historical reporting can test these narratives against evidence. It can compare maps, censuses, personal correspondence, schoolbooks and museum displays, showing how governments have edited memory to legitimise territorial ambition. This approach gives readers tools for assessing current statements rather than treating them as isolated political claims.
The series will draw on historians, local reporters, archives and community knowledge. It will examine the Russian Empire, Soviet rule, the annexation of Crimea, the destruction of Ukrainian institutions and the treatment of Indigenous Crimean Tatars. Each story will distinguish documented fact from interpretation and identify where evidence remains incomplete.
That care matters in Australia’s media market, where audiences move quickly between ABC reporting, SBS coverage, commercial television and social platforms. Fast updates are valuable during a crisis, but they rarely provide the historical context needed to understand why a place matters or how a claim was constructed.
Reporters based in the region can identify details that outside observers miss: the meaning of a place name, the history of a demolished building or the difference between an official memorial and a community’s memory. Supporting these journalists strengthens accuracy and reduces dependence on sources located in powerful capitals.
The foundation has seen how newsroom solidarity can widen that perspective. Our work on regional newsroom cooperation reflects the value of journalists sharing research, verification methods and safety knowledge across borders.
Australia is part of the wider information environment surrounding the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian Australians in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth often bring family histories and first-hand knowledge to public discussions. Their testimony can add depth to reporting, provided journalists treat communities as sources of expertise rather than symbols.
The issue also touches Australian policy. The country depends on secure maritime trade through routes connected to the Indian Ocean and supports international rules protecting sovereign borders. Readers in Newcastle or Fremantle understand that ports are economic infrastructure as well as strategic assets; Black Sea shipping carries the same combination of commercial and security significance.
Investigative history is expensive. Reporters may need to travel, translate Ottoman, Russian, Ukrainian or Georgian documents, consult specialists and protect vulnerable sources. Grants can cover the unglamorous work that makes a final story reliable: fact-checking, legal review, data storage and editorial collaboration.
This support is especially important when journalists face missile attacks, displacement and surveillance. A Ukrainian newspaper’s decision to continue operating from a shelter shows what public-interest reporting can require; its experience is documented in the story of a bomb-shelter newsroom.
The series will create a durable resource for journalists, educators and readers who need more than daily headlines. It will help explain why certain borders, monuments, languages and institutions have become targets of political struggle. It will also preserve testimony that may otherwise be lost through occupation, displacement or deliberate destruction.
Funding this work is a way to defend the public record. Clear reporting on Russian imperialism in the Black Sea region gives people the evidence to recognise historical manipulation, understand Ukraine’s sovereignty and judge present-day power claims with greater care.
