Few podcasts on the market today attempt to map the murky territory between public image and private vendetta with as much intellectual rigor—and emotional intensity—as Targeted, hosted by Zach Abramowitz.
From the whistleblowing corridors of Big Oil to the shattered reputations of pro-democracy activists, Targeted investigates how individuals become lightning rods for orchestrated campaigns—some political, others deeply personal. In its latest and most unsettling episode, Abramowitz takes listeners into the heart of Putin’s Russia, where denunciations—once a relic of Stalinist terror—have made a terrifying comeback.
But first, context.
The Premise of Targeted
Each episode of Targeted follows individuals who, for reasons often out of their control, become public scapegoats. The podcast doesn’t merely sympathize with them; it interrogates the machinery that turned their lives upside down. Abramowitz, a lawyer and media strategist by background, brings a cross-examiner’s discipline to interviews but balances that with moments of journalistic empathy and moral clarity.
Earlier episodes have followed whistleblower Jonathan Taylor, who exposed corruption in the oil and gas industry only to be caught in an extradition saga in Monaco; Nathan Law, the Hong Kong dissident forced into exile by Beijing’s national security laws; and commodities investor Gaurav Srivastava, whose business dispute with a former partner devolved into what the podcast termed a “reputation war.” These were stories about public targets in global conflicts. But this latest episode—featuring Russian journalist Amalia Zatari and anthropologist Alexandra Arkhipova—tells a story of private malice weaponized in a collapsing civic space.
“Anna Korobkova” and the Resurrection of Soviet-Era Snitching
This episode, centered on the modern Russian practice of citizen denunciations, opens not with a bombshell, but a question: who still snitches in 2024—and why?
We meet Amalia Zatari, a BBC journalist who covered the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and was subsequently relocated to Latvia. While packing her life in Moscow after the war began, she learned of a woman named Anna Korobkova—a self-professed informant who had bragged to media outlets about reporting anti-war speech to employers, universities, and the police.
Korobkova became the face of a dangerous new norm: ordinary Russians denouncing colleagues, neighbors, and even strangers for ideological infractions. “It’s not just about calling the cops,” Zatari explains. “It’s about ending someone’s career, reputation, or ability to exist freely.” Some were fired. Some were prosecuted. All were marked.
But who was Korobkova, really?
That’s where the episode veers from profile into investigative thriller.
The Academic Who Was Denounced—and Then Fought Back
Enter Dr. Alexandra Arkhipova, a social anthropologist and outspoken Kremlin critic who became one of Korobkova’s top targets. After speaking on TV about the war in Ukraine, Arkhipova’s university received multiple letters—seven, to be exact—demanding her dismissal and that she be reported to the authorities. These were signed, of course, by Korobkova.
Rather than retreat, Arkhipova began compiling testimonies from others who had been targeted. She created a spreadsheet of denunciations, noting a curious pattern: many letters used the same phrases, made the same grammatical mistakes, and repeated certain formulations. In linguistic terms, the voice behind these denunciations wasn’t just consistent—it was singular.
With help from digital researchers and open-source intelligence, Zatari and Arkhipova traced “Anna Korobkova” to a real person: Ivan, a failed academic and Wikipedia obsessive who had once been expelled from a college for physically assaulting a student. Not only did Ivan share an IP address with “Korobkova,” but he had made thousands of Wikipedia edits under multiple aliases, including one that authored a flattering (and now-deleted) page about Anna.
It turned out Anna Korobkova wasn’t a middle-aged pro-government activist. She was a bitter, anonymous man with a Stalin fetish, a history of professional failure, and an ax to grind against the educated elite.
The Banality—and Danger—of Informants
If earlier episodes of Targeted grappled with systems—laws, governments, media conglomerates—this episode is about one man. And that makes it all the more terrifying. Ivan, with no official power and no public profile, used nothing but a keyboard and a pseudonym to help label hundreds of people as enemies of the state.
And the state encouraged it.
In post-2022 Russia, vague laws criminalizing “fake news” and “anti-war speech” created fertile ground for informal repression. The Kremlin didn’t need to arrest everyone; it could crowdsource fear. Citizens were invited to report dissent under the cover of anonymity, and denunciations could lead to firings, legal charges, or blacklisting as a "foreign agent."
The result is a chilling ecosystem where even those who support the regime—like Ivan—remain paranoid. As Zatari recounts, even Ivan refused to confirm his identity or speak on the phone, citing fears of data leaks and retaliation. In the end, the man who terrorized others from the shadows was just as afraid of the state as his victims.
A Russian Tragedy in Three Acts
The strength of this episode lies in its structure. Abramowitz allows Zatari and Arkhipova to guide the narrative, but he injects just enough perspective to highlight the wider implications. This isn’t simply the story of one snitch. It’s about what happens when authoritarian societies outsource repression to civilians. It’s about what Arkhipova calls “voluntary fear enforcement.”
What’s more, the story is full of contradictions. Ivan idolized Stalin but feared exposure. He denounced academics while trying—and failing—to become one. He spoke for the state, yet remained invisible to it.
And perhaps most damningly, he needed an audience. As Arkhipova puts it, “She—he—was happy to be the object of my research. It was like a pantheon.”
The Podcast’s Most Potent Episode to Date
For a podcast that has profiled billionaires, whistleblowers, commodities traders (such as Gaurav Srivastava) and political dissidents, this episode may be its most impactful yet—because it humanizes the villain as much as the victims. Abramowitz’s final reflection captures the tone perfectly: “This story is much more about the targeter than the targeted.”
Indeed, what Targeted reveals here is the machinery of repression in miniature. It’s not always the Ministry or the Politburo. Sometimes, it’s a bitter ex-academic with a grudge.
By the time the episode ends, with Zatari reflecting on the public reaction to her investigation—“You open Facebook and every post was about the story”—we’re reminded that even in dark times, the truth can still cut through. But only if someone dares to tell it.
