Magdalena M. Baran: "It truly always depends on the same barbarism," wrote Arturo Pérez-Reverte, from Troy to Mostar or Sarajevo, it is always the same war." Having spent years as a war correspondent in this way, he “summulated” his years of work in the book Comańcz territory. It comes to the conclusion that in fact... the same war, though possibly not the same, utilizing always fresh means, but invariably pursuing akin goals, full of horror, cruelty and terror. How does it look from your perspective?
Paweł Money: The motivations of wars do not change. As Margaret MacMillan wrote, the foundation of wars is always either greed, or self-defense, or emotion, or ideas. And that has not changed, so yes – in any sense wars stay precisely the same. The measures are changing, the tools are changing, the way they are being conducted, but from the position of the civilian population, they are always immense dramas and tragedies, due to the fact that it is always the first nonsubjective of these wars that she suffers. I think the position of the civilian population is the worst, due to the fact that they are the ones who are amazed by the war. War comes to their homes in contrast to virtually all another categories that come to this war, including soldiers. Well, possibly excluding territorial defence, due to the fact that these are very frequently people from the same towns or cities. However, in most cases they are people who have a place to go, and the civilian population has to face this war at home. Often, too, there is no chance of leaving to think about what to do, due to the fact that sometimes war comes overnight. So, in a sense, war does not change, including erstwhile it comes to cruelty. During the full-scale war in Ukraine, after 24 February 2022, we saw plenty of it. These are very terrible things. It is not accidental to ask, in fact, rather naive, "How is this possible in the 21st century?" This is the best example that what seemed to many in the past is still, unfortunately, the present.
Among military experts, the opinion on whether we expected war in Ukraine is divided. I stand in the position that... we've seen; what's more, we've seen with little or more accuracy in establishing this war in time. It's like before it started, there's already been a long shadow. What does it look like in your environment?
As regards the possible of full-scale war, which began on February 24, the views on whether it would happen shortly or not were divided. However, I think most people were convinced that there would be any serious escalation. I myself thought that it was not at the time that the war with Russia on a large scale was a substance of the future, but I thought that further than closer. The opinions were so very different. 1 cannot forget that the war has been going on here for 9 years, so in this sense we all knew that the war was going on and that it was nothing new, so we gotta emphasize this position of escalation somehow. Anyway – the positions were very different. any were convinced (although fewer of them) that nothing would happen. I myself – as I mentioned – thought it would happen later, but it was simply a fact that I believed the Ukrainian side, not the American one. I thought the Americans were exaggerating for any reason that I couldn't rather explain myself. I believed it would be a full-scale war only after Vladimir Putin recognized the independency of the territories of the alleged Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic erstwhile they began building camps at the borders and evacuation began. That's erstwhile I realized something was going to happen, but it was actually on the eve of the full-scale war.
Can we – and I am asking about the purely professional dimension – prepare for war? As a correspondent, but besides as a man?
Yes, of course, you can prepare in a fewer ways. erstwhile I was going to Ukraine on 14 or 15 February 2022, I already had all the equipment and I was prepared. The possible that something could happen was already stronger, although – as I compose about it in the book – on 22 February, I did not take this full equipment with me. I left everything in Kiev, so erstwhile a full-scale war began on February 24, I had to return to Kiev. But you can truly get ready for all this. The longer I work in areas affected by armed conflicts (I started with Ukraine in 2014, later I was inactive in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Mountain Karabach), I am learning all this. I am always well prepared erstwhile it comes to equipment – but for specified equipment as a "heavy" one, a helmet, a first aid kit, I have quite a few different foods (which come from a diet), I always carry with me coffee, a grinder and an aeropress, thanks to which I can make transferable coffee, due to the fact that long ago I decided that I would not drink hopeless coffee. So in terms of equipment, you can prepare as much as you can and I'm getting better at it too. I've just learned this experience.
When it comes to any intellectual or emotional dimension, you can, too. For me it is simply a job, so I am always prepared and frequently from day to day I can go to a place of armed conflict. Of course, the more information I have, the more I know about where I am, the easier it is to control anxiety. In the case of Ukraine, I felt no fear at all. I was simply preparing well, due to the fact that in the first days it was unclear what would happen, so my colleagues and I were supplied with large amounts of water and food. We were even prepared to proceed in surrounded Kiev, which yet did not happen. But I have no problem getting ready for this. After years, it becomes part of the occupation and is ready for it. To any extent, you get utilized to war. She's not so scary anymore, due to the fact that it's always like erstwhile you face something directly, you see something with your own eyes, it doesn't make any more impressions like erstwhile you watch it from a distance and through any middleman.
Jerzy Pomianowski, referring to the wars of the 20th century, wrote that “history seldom kept on the chain, but in this century—everyone saw it on the occupation due to the fact that they had never recorded its lenses and cameras before, they had not spread megaphones and screens, let alone feathers.” Meanwhile, today's coverage, velocity of information, its magnitude, fact or falsehood... did not fit into the imagination of the time. How does the fact that, through the media, including social media, we see specified a scale of “the communicative on the job” change the perception of war today?
Of course, it changes the image of war, due to the fact that if what Pomianowski wrote about was mainly about conventional media and writers, today, the access to direct writing and reporting is truly available to all those who have net access, smartphones (it doesn't even should be advanced quality to transmit images that make a large impression). But the fact that these images that remain, all those iconic things that make war truly go into our memory, that's the work of professional photographers, operators, journalists, writers. These are things that can last this net mill and do not get lost in the merry-go-round of endless messages on feed. The importance of this conventional message, although Pomianowski alternatively regarded it as innovative, is crucial here and is already a small underestimated. All those who say, "Why journalists in wars, erstwhile everything can be seen on social media"... But as Patrick Cockburn wrote nicely: “From YouTube you will not learn who won the war”, and all these clips, short pictures, fast content usually do not make you know more, only less. They're alternatively a chaotic patch that you won't learn much from. They are frequently very emotional, awesome and, as I said, memorable, so in this respect they have their own value. But it is due to the media that these things become a communicative and a basis for a future war story. That is why I consider the "old media" very crucial and why this profession is crucial to me, due to the fact that I think it is just a immense work for how this war is said. But the intermediary is always any kind of distortion, and the more people are between you and direct experience, the more it is distorted. It seems to me that even though only the reader or the viewer is incapable to feel the same, the closer he gets, the better the work of a journalist, photographer, operator or writer. That's the job. The more people know about it and pay attention to it, the better. I do not agree with this message that all these pictures only make people apathetic and not interested. They can only halt curious erstwhile the media does their occupation wrong, erstwhile they go easy, erstwhile they don't tell the stories of people, erstwhile they don't show that war is people like you or me, and not any abstract figure, not numbers, not places of fire, not reports or reports of the Ministry of Defense, just those around us. Who could be your neighbour or your neighbor, individual in your family. That's erstwhile a individual can someway feel all this, get closer to it, empathize with it, to realize it better. I think it's a very crucial occupation to do, due to the fact that it'll never be the same as the war communicative from behind the desk.
This “seeing of war” has indeed changed. Just look at the last 100 years. From the writings of George Orwell or Ernest Hemingway, through photographs of Lee Miller, books specified as Kaputt Malaparti Curzia or Registers from Homs Jonathan Littel, Ryszard Kapusciński's reporting, Jean Hatzfeld's conversation, and Francesca Borri's writing from her wonderful book The Syrian Dust. It's a purely subjective choice, of course. And yet the choice that brings war into reality, into its everyday life. In her momentum. The fact that it yet happens between people.
I have nothing to add here.
In your book Resistance. Ukrainians Against Russian Invasion, war is revealed multidimensionally. It's a war story, but most of all, a human story. About the raging war machine, but above all about how – in his individuality – a single man stands in her way. How you can't escape a war, and sometimes you just don't want to run.
The most interesting thing for me in the war is that people frequently make choices there, which we are incapable to realize, which, due to our limited imagination, seem incredible to us. For example, the question of whether to run away, whether to stay / or leave home, or to stay in it very frequently involves a number of another things. Many of the people I spoke to stayed, because, for example, they had individual sick, had older parents or grandparents who could not decision and for this reason decided to stay in their homes, even though it was a large danger for them – in fact, the desire to defend a loved 1 could affect death for them. The another thing I realize theoretically, but I practically inactive feel helpless about her, is that people don't want to leave home due to the fact that they're worried about the home itself, about their 4 walls and any memories of them. frequently this is the most valuable thing in their lives, and it is hard for them to imagine that they would find themselves in another place. The more society is open to movement, the more hard it is to imagine. I myself have never felt powerfully connected with my hometown, so I find it hard to identify with this attachment to the land. And this is simply a very crucial thing for many people – this proximity to the land and to their home. This is very interesting and I think it is an component of this title opposition – the fact that a man chooses to defy in a simple way: staying at home, trying to keep his average life, which war tries to grind. These are all those elements that are interesting, due to the fact that from specified a purely rational point of view, we think that the answer is zero-one here, and in the meantime it turns out that there are many, many, and only imagination is what limits us.
On the 1 hand, the war you're talking about brings helplessness, fear and fear. 1 of your heroines, Margarita of Constantinople, will even say, “How the threat of death hangs over you, you can not sleep all day.” And that threat is real.
And not only at the front of Donbass, due to the fact that Constantinówka is simply a place to which the front line is slow approaching, especially in the face of the ongoing offensive on Bachmut, but besides in another towns, further from the front, due to the fact that you never know erstwhile the rocket, which is about to be launched, will fall on your home. Although there is simply a difference between what was in 2014 and what is now – there were clear safety zones, and of course there are places that are safer or even completely safe – like Zakarpacie – but there is always a hazard that any stray rocket will fly even to these places very safe, so any alarm siren may rise fear that it will fall on you. In places like Donbas, where it's not only long-range rockets, but besides artillery shoots the residents and their homes, you can anticipate something terrible at any moment. Serhij Zadan wrote in Internet: “Fear is an unseen thing, but omnipotent – you don’t see any danger, around silently and even the sky up will shine with metallic ribbons, and only knowing that they are targeting you and that they can fuck at you at any time.” So this threat is real and you inactive have a feeling (which you effort to push away, but it keeps coming back) that you can just die at any moment. People effort to push it distant from each another so they don't go crazy, but they come back wanting not to.
There's besides a minute another hero of your book, Jarosław... “You cannot get utilized to war, but it is terrible how rapidly fear, instinct of endurance become dull... erstwhile we get home, it will be besides quiet to sleep.” And there is simply a minute of clarity and, in fact, of saying surely not “if”, but “when we return”. due to the fact that Ukrainians at all the momentum and cruelty of this war have no uncertainty about it.
It is simply a immense motivation and it does not decrease, sometimes even increases. Compared – from February 24 to the present, the number of people who believe in triumph increased, although from the very beginning was very high. Ukrainians have no uncertainty that this war will win, sometimes even by ignoring their opponent, but the feeling that everything will succeed, that they will return to their homes and regain these territories (or possibly even those lost in 2014), due to the fact that these first defeats of Russia have greatly boosted morale and mood. And then besides later military successes, including in the Kharkiv region or the Kherson region, Nikolai region, caused this assurance to increase significantly. Although this phase of war, which begins now, and the possible large offensive of the Russians may origin Russia to take the initiative again. The situation in the battlefield is inactive open and there may be many scenarios here. This is 1 of the conflicts that I personally am not certain about, which happens rather rarely, due to the fact that it is usually rather rapidly possible to measure which side of the conflict is developing. It seems that Ukraine has an advantage, but 1 can besides imagine scenarios in which this situation turns to the detriment of Ukraine – and now is 1 of those moments erstwhile this initiative of war can change. Yet, the Ukrainians stay highly optimistic. I'm usually skeptical.
On the another hand, we besides have perseverance and solidarity. We have those who aid each other. We have common concern. And something else. due to the fact that even if not all your heroes talk these words out loud, they say with almost 1 voice, "This is my country." And that has consequences. Yeah... what kind?
The full-scale war is just zero-one. Many Ukrainians understood this, even those who were passive to the war that began in 2014. They understood that this was a game for everything and that if they lost, then Ukraine would be no more, then they would not be able to live as before, then their cities would be destroyed or just life in them would die, even if they were not destroyed, and they would be occupied. So they decided that there was something to argue and that there was something to fight for, there was something to do. The fact that they are not fighting for any abstract purpose, but for their homes, has made them willing to sacrifice much more than in any another situation. The defensive war always gives a gigantic motivation erstwhile you know whose side to stand on. It is besides a substance of not being a war, where all parties are involved, where affiliations are unclear (such as in the case of the war in Syria), but there are very circumstantial parties here. And even if you are a critic of the Ukrainian state, you did not like it, but you know that here you can change something, here you hope for the future, and at the minute erstwhile Russia comes, most of the characters of my book think that there will be no future for them. That's why they had to put their aversion, their criticism, or their doubts aside.
Two paintings hit me. A cheerful pensioner Alexander, as well as Walentyn, who in war swindles the hedge “to compensate”. For me it is simply a image like that of Miłosz, from “The Song of the End of the World”, where you get a distance, where “another end of the planet will not be.” but that, although your interlocutors "the sky – frequently rather virtually – falls on their heads", there is hope in them.
Hope lives in them just due to the reason I mentioned earlier – that the war seems to be won after all, that no substance how long it lasts and what losses there will be, it will be successful in it. Those who live in occupied areas believe that Ukraine will come back to them and erstwhile it comes back, it is simply a gigantic joy for them, an example of which is described by me in the book Kharkivszczyń or Cherson, which I do not compose about in the book, but where people went out on the streets, celebrated, chanted – they just played. due to the fact that for them, the return of this country is that there is simply a future, that they can live, can change, they have the right to everything (despite all this criticism that I mentioned earlier, due to the fact that they feel that they can change it) – so they fight for this country.
This hope is present in Izium. due to the fact that although the city is burnt, although so characteristic of war penetrates it, although – somewhat like in Siewierodoniecek – buildings can be divided into "fired, holed, with decomposed roofs standing in the fire, already to the ground and yet survived", freedom returns to Izium. Lubov says: “It’s not just blue-yellow flags. This is something else.” That's much more due to the fact that life goes back to where the war is inactive going. How is that possible?
Life actually dies erstwhile the city is absolutely destroyed. This was seen, for example, in Siedernoniec, and now in Bahmut... But this is the most optimistic communicative possible about the war, that this place in the city or village is very hard to finish, that people proceed and fight to last due to the fact that they believe in the future. For me, frequently specified tiny signs, e.g. that individual did not leave, planted flowers, cleaned his home or the basement in which he is located – this makes him believe that something is waiting for him. Life in the midst of armed conflicts always continues and these armed conflicts show how hard this life beats, how hard it is to suppress them, even though they fall on the cities of tons of iron that equals them to the ground. Nevertheless, people fight for their survival, they fight to keep their regular life – they are resisting it.
Paul Money – (born 1989), writer constantly cooperating with “The Universal Weekly”. He has reported on events including Afghanistan, Mountain Karabach, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine. The author of the books: “Welcomes from fresh Russia”, “The War That Changed Us” and “After the Caliphate. A fresh War in Syria". MediaTory writer award winner in 2019 in the Navigator category for relations with war-tored Syria.
