FROM the moment he was arrested everything smelled wrong. An investigative journalist whose nose for corruption took him close to senior Moscow city officials is “discovered” with drugs in his rucksack, the publication of pictures of a drug lab in his apartment, which turns out not to be his apartment at all, the assignment of a senior Moscow police officer to oversee an allegedly routine drugs case, and the referral to a Kremlin-favoured doctor to check on his health.

Ivan Golunov was, in his editor’s words, a “hyper-focused sleuth who can chase leads for weeks and months on end”. He worked for Meduza, a Russian language news service based in Latvia, employing a group of independent-minded Russian journalists. Golunov was investigating the ways in which certain Moscow city officials were accumulating wealth by forcing people out of their apartments, as well as looking into the often

violent competition for control of Moscow’s cemeteries.

Journalism in Russia can be a dangerous business and press freedom is under constant pressure. Reporters Without Borders this year placed Russia 149th in the 180 nations it evaluated for press freedom. Far too many journalists have been murdered and many more subject to violence and intimidation.

Many of these deaths have arisen directly or indirectly from the conflict in Chechnya, others were killed after their investigations brought them into the sights of powerful political or business interests.

It would probably be wrong in most cases to suggest that these are being ordered by those in the Kremlin, but attitudes at the top towards press freedom, opposition and dissent have created an atmosphere where these things are possible and largely accepted.

Those who work for the very few remaining critical outlets such as Novaya Gazeta are particularly vulnerable, with six of their journalists murdered since 2001.

Amongst those was Anna Politkovskaya, a stern critic of President Vladimir Putin and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. She was shot dead in 2006 – an act rumoured to have been ordered by Kadyrov. Following the killing, Putin dismissed her as insignificant for Russia.

It seems Golunov got too close to someone and steps were taken to silence him. Not for the first time a critic was being subject to dubious charges, and not for the last time it seems, as one day later a political activist in the North Caucasian republic of Kabardino Balkharia was arrested after drugs were allegedly found in his car.

Normally those arrested ‘sit’ for weeks, months, even years before trial, but the rapid and remarkable wave of support for Golunov, helped by the fact that his supporters were far more social media savvy than the authorities, led to his release under house arrest and then the dropping of all charges a couple of days later.

His arrest and his release were political, not judicial decisions. But while it is unlikely that the president was involved in the first, there are strong suggestions he was involved in the second.

There would appear to be confirmation of this in reports which “credit” Anton Vaino, head of the presidential administration, with ensuring Golunov’s initial release into house arrest.

The remarkable thing about this case was the wave of solidarity. Crowds immediately gathered at his place of detention and then outside the court, with an extensive social media campaign and support from a number of celebrities.

In a context where most independent newspapers have been closed down, three ‘liberal’ papers which generally steer a cautious line shared a headline “I am/We are Ivan Golunov”.

Several journalists from the loyalist Russia Today even protested. Despite his release, an unauthorised demonstration for press freedom went ahead on Wednesday in Moscow, with more than 400 arrested for participation and many arrests caught and shared on social media.

Amongst the more striking video clips was that of two elderly women telling the police that their mothers would be ashamed of them, until they were silenced by a group of para-military OMON troops wading in and dragging them off to the police bus.

So was this a triumph for justice and press freedom? Does it tell us anything about the relationship between the state and the media? What does it tell us about Putin and his political order?

The National: Vladimir Putin

As several Russian commentators noted, the fact that Golunov was released was cause for celebration but also a reminder that his release was less a victory for press freedom than a political attempt at crisis management which did not reflect a fundamental shift in Kremlin attitudes.

Various factors have been suggested for the intervention of the Kremlin, from the threat of a large public demonstration on June 12, awareness that Putin was in St Petersburg attending the International Economic Forum trying to attract investors back to Russia, and the fact that his annual live phone-in show was scheduled for June 20.

In recent years a wave of low-level protest have taken place, much of it less concerned with civil rights grievances than with everyday issues including pension reforms, local environmental problems like toxic dumping or building projects that take away parks and playgrounds.

Many of these are not aimed directly at the Kremlin, but do suggest that government does not have its eyes on the needs of the people. Occasionally, if things get too serious, Putin will sweep down from Olympus to spur action, reprimand a few individuals or discretely give in to a popular demand.

The problem he has is that of all leaders, especially those of an authoritarian disposition, in that he cannot know everything and cannot anticipate what his subordinates will do. They in turn failed to anticipate popular reaction or that this might upstage their presidents.

Putin represents what Russian commentator Aleksei Eremenko calls the “visible state”, developing the main outlines of Russia’s political direction, but sits on a vast “submerged state”, made up of actors just below him pursuing their own agendas and interests.

Some have wondered if recent events mark the start of something new, but this was predicted after the protests against electoral falsification in 2011-12, and there is no sign that the regime is under threat or willing to fundamentally change its approach to the mass media.

The printed press retains little islands of freedom, but television largely remains loyal to those in the Kremlin.

In March, the Russian Duma approved a law allowing courts to jail people for online disrespect of government officials – including the president.

So it is positive that Golunov is free and it was good to see a healthy show of solidarity for press freedom, even if many Russians remain sceptical about a turn for the better in this area.

For many, Golunov represents the best traditions of Russian journalism, so far better for the authorities to embrace such writers than silence them.

John Anderson is a professor at the School of International Relations, University of St Andrews