The mediator of the Radio France antennas, Emmanuelle Daviet, receives Claude Guibal, senior reporter in the international editorial team of Radio France, special correspondent in the Donbass to answer questions from listeners on the treatment of the war in Ukraine.
Emmanuelle Daviet: It is important to give you the floor, because since the outbreak of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, listeners have regretted hearing less about the war in Ukraine. However, Radio France maintains its reporting system in the field. You are currently in Donbass, with your technician Hélène Langlois, and your fixer Yashar Fazylov.
This is your first time in Ukraine, what are your impressions?
Claude Guibal: The impressions are those of a country which is resisting, after already two years of war, which is entering a third year of war, with a situation which is not at all what we experienced two years ago. This is a very difficult moment, perhaps a tipping point, where the future of this war is at stake.
Between the questions about the continuation of international aid, the questions about the future of Ukraine within Europe, the questions about the future, quite simply, of this war. Ukrainians have the feeling that they are in fact containing Russia, Russian ambitions even beyond their borders. What they keep telling us is: “It’s not going to stop with us.”, and this is what people constantly tell us, in fact, that they are there, a bit like the outposts of a Europe which is watching them, and is starting to let them go. And they know that they only have one possible outcome, and that is to hold on and resist as much as possible.
And Ukrainians have the feeling that we talk less about them?
One of the things that comes up quite regularly is the need to talk about them. Even if the Ukrainians convince themselves that Europe cannot afford to abandon them, because they see the threat very well. Despite everything, they realize that they are no longer at the center of the news, that the conflict between Israel and Gaza has taken first place.
And we must be aware that it is not simply the first media spot. They also know that this first place also counts in the continuation of arms deliveries, or in particular American support, since the United States uses part of its aid today for Israel, particularly with regard to defense. anti-aircraft.
Claude Guibal, some listeners would like to know if there is more danger in going on this type of terrain for a woman than for a man, or does that not come into play at all?
So I’m used to covering regions other than Ukraine, where this issue could possibly come into play a little more. But here, not at all. First of all, the way people treat us is exactly the same whether we are a man or a woman. Perhaps, at times, the presence of two women on a team can come as a surprise. Or perhaps our approach is perhaps less ‘manly’ on military issues. And no, I don’t feel like it makes any particular difference.
How to avoid pathos in a report when you are dealing with people who are suffering psychologically and physically?
So it’s a question we constantly ask ourselves when reporting, when we’re dealing with hard things, because I think we need to avoid confusing one thing: pathos and sensitivity. Reporting is writing with sensitivity, reporting is a person who goes on site to provide facts. And from the moment it is a person, we assume this sensitivity. Since reporting is written with the senses. As photography is written with light and reporting, it is written with your ears, with your nose, with your eyes, with your words, and with your physical feelings, with your emotional intelligence.
So, once we feel that and we hit it – I’ll let you imagine here – in the face. You have to know how to channel this emotion, it is not just gratuitous, it is not there to overflow at that moment. It is indeed pathos. The journalist’s job is precisely to use this emotion as a vector of information, which will be channeled since it is contextualized. It is argued, it is supported in fact, and it is verified.
We end with this recurring question from listeners: do you know what happens to the people you interview, do you keep in touch with them?
So I do it almost systematically, and thank you to the social networks which allow at this level – Facebook, WhatsApp and then all Signal, Telegram and other messaging services – to keep links, because I need to know who are these people I spent time with.
I’ll just give you an example. We spent part of the night yesterday, half buried in a casemate, at the front line in Donbass, with three young soldiers with whom we spent time. During that time, we heard the shells falling every 30 seconds, and we were with them. We spent several hours with them. And you don’t just discuss the situation. You talk for a while about how they feel, you talk about their relationships with their parents, you share moments, and you don’t leave by slamming the door and saying that you’re going to forget about it.
You leave “burdened with this”, and we need to know what happens to them. We want to know, and it is not simply for journalistic purposes that we want to maintain, we want to continue this story, and very often when it is possible, and when we are sent back to place, I like, I like meeting people, yes.