“To Crimea through Ukraine only”

Pilar Bonet, a well-known Spanish journalist, worked as correspondent in Moscow back in the Soviet era. She came back to Russia in 2001 after a ten-year break. Ms. Bonet confesses that, as correspondent of Spain’s largest newspaper El Pais, she constantly travels across “post-Soviet territories.” “Naturally, it’s impossible to embrace everything. There are some priorities, including Ukraine,” the journalist says. “I am not one of those foreign correspondents who have come over for the first time and don’t know history. My approach is rather specific – I try to look at all events from a historical perspective. Whenever I see somebody, I can guess who he or she was in the ‘previous life.’ For more or less adult people, in both Ukraine and Russia, have had ‘several’ lives. It is important for me to trace the development of an individual because very much depends on this.”

We spoke with Pilar Bonet about the danger of a new war in Europe, the impact of the media on political decision-making, and problems in establishing cooperation between the Ukrainian state and foreign journalists.

Pilar, do you share the opinion that responsibility for Europe’s and America’s unpreparedness for the Russian aggression against Ukraine also lies partly with Western journalists? What aspects of the Russian reality and history do you think are not properly reflected in your colleagues’ materials today?

“For me, there is no such thing as Western journalist as well as, say, ‘Western shoemaker.’ ‘The West’ is a very vague, hazy, and uncertain notion. I think responsibility is an individual factor. I can say nothing on behalf of a ‘Western journalist,’ I can only speak on behalf of myself, Pilar Bonet. I am only responsible for what I have written. I am not responsible even for headlines – they are approved in Madrid.

“As for my colleagues’ materials, I don’t read them just for lack of time. The exception is, for example, an interview with President Poroshenko, which I must read as an element of reality. For, in my view, the journalist’s main job is to show reality as precisely as possible irrespective of his or her personal attitude to it. Each of my colleagues has different opinions, possibilities, and skills. The fact that every person is limited to some extent and should not give in to propagandistic environment is one of the lessons journalists have had to draw in the past few years. One must seek direct contact with reality and ignore the things that can hinder this.”

What surprised you the most when you came back to Moscow after a 10-year break?

“I was surprised that people pretend that their past did not exist. In reality, the past influences the present. This is important for both Russia and Ukraine. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the USSR’s collapse. It seemed at the time that things would change quickly, irreversibly, and bloodlessly. But if you look back, you will see that it was an illusion. I am convinced that the process that began in 1991 has not yet finished. It turned out that it is a very long and difficult process which is still going on – also in people’s minds. Identity is a very precarious thing that is inclined to vary and depends on all kinds of manipulations. For example, in Spain a person can be Catalan and Spanish at the same time. Two identities can coexist harmoniously. But there are people who are sure they are Catalans, not Spaniards. When I covered events in Ukraine, particularly in the east, the question of identity would emerge, rather suddenly, over and over again.”

Am I right that, in your view, the Russian-Ukrainian war is also continuation of the USSR’s breakup, especially at the level of identities?

“If you mean the mentality of the participants in this conflict, not the legal realities, it is just the case. The Soviet Union theme was not finally overcome in the minds of people.”

Can one draw certain parallels in this context with the situation in Spain, where the tradition of a democratic and liberal society is not as old as in some other European countries? How did you manage to overcome this legacy?

“Indeed, the traditions of authoritarianism and putschism were stronger in Spain than those of democracy. In 1936, the Spanish Republic saw an illegal coup that triggered a civil war. After Franco’s death we got back into a democratic channel. But democracy is not a static condition – it is a process that needs to be developed. One must fight for democracy every day. This principle is topical always and everywhere – not only in Ukraine or Spain.”

The foreign journalists who cover events in Ukraine, Belarus, and the countries of Central Asia are almost always based in Russia. Do you think this has an impact on their vision? Why is, for example, El Pais not opening an office in Kyiv?

“I think it is an economic and organizational issue. I try to write about Ukraine, using Ukrainian sources and visiting you as often as possible. When I come to my office in the morning, I always read Ukrainian and Russian websites. I know a lot of Ukrainian colleagues who I always stay in contact with. I try to keep abreast of events in Ukraine. But I agree that one reporter is not enough to cover events both in Ukraine and Russia – it is not enough even for Russia alone. Do you think I can cope with 13 countries on my own? Of course not. But it is no more than a question of limited resources.”

Has your work changed in the past few years, as far as resources and organization are concerned? For Russian propaganda has reached a qualitatively new level in this period of time. What do you do to adequately respond to this challenge?

“There is propaganda in Russia, Ukraine, and Spain. All governments are trying to persuade us that they are right. The question is to what extent and by which methods, and whether there are other, alternative, sources of information in the country. It is not two years ago that propaganda appeared in Russia. Anti-Western propaganda is very strong there, first of all in the state-run media. But it sharply increased and I would say became systemic in the summer of 2013. I can remember well that period. In late July one of the state-run channels launched a long series of clearly anti-European programs. They took advantage of the story of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund. There were also programs about prostitution and drugs. What struck me was the colors in which Europe was painted and the aggressiveness of these materials.”

Was it perhaps an informational background for the aggression against Ukraine and confrontation with the Western world?

“I cannot prove this. But systemic propaganda against Europe and European values was really obvious at the time, and it is going on today. It is today a permanent background for the coverage of all events.”

There is a viewpoint that this increase in propaganda, the never-ending modernization of the army in spite of economic difficulties, as well as strengthening of the regime (particularly changes in legislation), show preparation if not for World War Three then at least for a qualitatively new conflict with, for example, one of the NATO countries. Do you share this viewpoint and do you think you bear responsibility for a timely warning of your reader about this danger?

“I can’t warn about what I don’t know. My responsibility is to mirror facts as deeply and carefully as possible. It is also my responsibility not to say the things I don’t know, not to abet aggression, and leave a chance for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. I am trying to hear both Ukraine and Russia and show all viewpoints as accurately as possible, no matter whether I like them or not.

“The impression really is that the situation has worsened very much. But I cannot know if there is really a preparation for such a war. We have already seen so many things that seemed impossible earlier that I find it difficult to answer this question unequivocally – this requires a much deeper analysis. Is Russia going to attack the Baltic countries? I don’t think so. Did I think that Crimea could be annexed? No, but this happened.

“Before the beginning of World War One, nobody wanted to fight, but Franz Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo, and all hell broke loose. Should a new war break out today, this will have bad consequences for all. I believe we must ward it off in some way and coordinate our interests on a different level. Is it possible? I don’t know.”

Ukrainian journalists think that the Western media have quite an essential impact on political decision-making – this is where the difference between them and us is. To what extent is this viewpoint correct? Can you see, as a journalist, any tangible results from your materials?

“Frankly speaking, not so many. But it is difficult to make general conclusions about the media because I can’t possibly monitor all of them. As for international politics, particularly, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Spain is obviously not the pivotal state. An EU and NATO member, it cannot make separate decisions on this matter – Spain can only influence making decisions inside these organizations. The press wields perhaps a greater deal of clout in the context of domestic policies. But it is also a disputable matter. Whenever the media reveal a corruption scandal, the culprits far from always resign – they often continue to hold their office for a long time. Maybe, one politician or another knows me as a journalist, trusts my publications, and will therefore take into account the opinions I express in them, but, on the whole, I would not overestimate the media’s impact on international politics.”

What do you think of the decisions made at NATO’s Warsaw summit? To what extent adequately do you think they respond to current challenges?

“In my view, NATO is not prepared now to assume essential responsibility for the Ukrainian question. There seem to be different opinions inside the organization about the required degree of intervention in this conflict. A sober analysis suggests that what prevails so far is unwillingness to clash with Russia. They are biding their time. NATO is prepared neither to defend Ukraine nor to abandon it.”

How has the image of Ukraine changed in Spanish society and media lately?

“There are different visions. As you know, there are a lot of Ukrainians living in Spain. The Spaniards who work and mingle with Ukrainians characterize them as very good, high-skilled, and industrious people. But the overall image of Ukraine, particularly in the eyes of Spanish elites, is, unfortunately, far from the best due to never-ending scandals, corruption, and domestic conflicts. All this causes many to be somewhat ‘tired’ of Ukraine. But it is hardly a purely Spanish phenomenon. What also matters is differences between reality and expectations – it seemed two and a half years ago that the Maidan would be reproduced at a more systemic level. But I know that renewals never occur instantly – they need time. Ukrainians still have a great deal of work to do.”

In the previous interview with our publication (see “On the Kremlin’s ‘safety margin’” The Day, No. 11, February 18, 2016), you reproached the Ukrainian authorities for denying foreign journalists access to Crimea and the Donbas. What major steps do you think governmental institutions should take to improve cooperation with journalists?

“Journalists must do their work. They should have a possibility to meet all the sides, even the devil, if necessary. I don’t understand why Ukraine does not want to restore governmental accreditation of foreign journalists, which Ukraine’s foreign ministry used to do on an equal basis for all. My last accreditation dates back to 2010 – this means this practice was suspended in the Yanukovych era. Accreditation allowed a journalist to work all over the territory of Ukraine. There is a similar procedure in most of the countries. Today, in Ukraine, I have always to carry with me a lot of old accreditations to prove that I am really a journalist. And what about my younger colleagues who don’t have any at all? Naturally, when a war is going on, the situation must be controlled, but this requires clear-cut and uniform rules.

“Traveling to Crimea or the Donbas, I have always observed the Ukrainian law. I have never flown to Crimea from Moscow – only through Ukraine. Never did I cross the border between the Donbas and Rostov oblast – only through Ukrainian checkpoints. And this required so much nerve and effort, for the procedure was very exhausting. When a top European diplomat in Russia learned about my principled approach, he was surprised very much and noted: ‘You must be only one like this.’ I don’t want to accuse any of my colleagues, but it is very tempting to take a Crimea-bound airliner in Moscow. But if you’ve chosen the lawful way, you must first secure a letter at Ukraine’s Ministry of Information Politics. To do so, you must explain to the ministry what you are going to write about. Then you carry this letter, the copy of your passport, and other documents to the State Migration Service which gives you a single-use permit some time later. You show this permit to a border guard in Perekop, who says in surprise: ‘How can I be sure it is a genuine one?’ and begins to phone to his superiors. If it is about the Donbas, the procedure is different – via the Security Service and the Ministry of Defense. Why should the work of journalists be so much complicated?”