“Preliminary analysis shows that there is no threat posed to Russia by Julian Assange’s resource. You have to understand that if there is the desire and the right team, it’s possible to shut it down forever,” an expert from the FSB’s Center for Information Security was quoted by Life News as saying on Tuesday.

Links between hacker cells and the FSB made in the past lend credence to this thinly veiled secret services threat. In his recent book on Russia’s secret services, investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov details how the Russian FSB “maintain a sophisticated alliance with unofficial hackers, such as those who carry out cyber attacks on the Web sites of enemies of the state,” drawing attention to hacker forums such as Informacia.ru.

Given Russia’s notoriously malleable extremism legislation, which Wikimedia (despite its name, not affiliated to WikiLeaks) recently fell foul of, it is hard to imagine that classified information on Russia from WikiLeaks could pass as anything short of “extreme.” Indeed, a Gazeta.Ru editorial yesterday pointed out precisely this contradiction in the claim that WikiLeaks is “no threat posed to Russia.”

…

According to Assange, “the despotic regimes of Russia, China and Central Asia” were the original focus of his project when he was pitching it to potential investors four years ago.

…

Speaking to The Christian Science Monitor yesterday, Andrei Soldatov said that the problem for WikiLeaks would not be actually leaking information on Russia, but rather that leaking that information would not stimulate any public discussion in Russia’s muzzled media.

Soldatov drew attention to a Web site that in June published what it claimed was leaked FSB correspondence detailing intelligence operations in the CIS, including in Turkmenistan and Ukraine. The site called Lubyankapravda.com, hosted in the United States, has since gone offline, but during its three-week existence won no media attention. Because of what Soldatov blamed on the lack of media freedom in Russia, the FSB correspondence was never authenticated through public discussion, precluding the possibility of analyzing its claims. “It is no accident that I am not quoting details from these documents. The point is that there is one big difference between these documents and the WikiLeaks collection. Unlike the American reports, the FSB correspondence, although it was put out on the Internet, never did land in the public sphere,” Andrei Soldatov wrote in an August article posted on his Agentura.ru Web site.

Lieven said that discussion in the mass media of WikiLeaks dossiers on Russia was unrealistic, although it was more possible in the print media, which has comparative freedom within certain boundaries. “The problem has always been direct attacks on Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev, or those directly compromising state security. I’m sure if you started leaking stuff about the Russian armed forces similar to what’s been leaked about the American armed forces, I think something very nasty might happen to you,” said Lieven.