Ukrainian Journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk on Russia's Invasion

Nataliya Gumenyuk takes us behind the headlines to reveal the stark reality of Ukraine's resistance to Russian aggression. Having embedded with drone operators near the frontlines, she offers rare insight into evolving military tactics. "Before, drones were supplementary," she says, "but now they're used instead of artillery."

A Ukrainian journalist based in Kyiv, she describes The Reckoning Project, which collects testimonies that may serve as journalistic material or evidence for future prosecutions. This work inspired “The Reckoning,” a recent limited-run theatrical production at the Arcola theater in London, produced in cooperation with Dash Arts.

When discussing her colleague Victoria Roshchyna — who died in Russian captivity, and whose mutilated body was ultimately returned to Ukraine — Nataliya asks what more could be done for those still held by Russia. Reporters Without Borders has profiled 29. The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine says the figure is at least 30, while Nataliya puts it at 35.

As our interview concludes, an air raid alert sounds on Nataliya's phone — a striking reminder that for Ukrainians, the war is everpresent.

Speakers:

J. Alex Tarquinio (host) is a resident correspondent at the United Nations in New York and co-founder of The Delegates Lounge podcast. Subscribe to our new YouTube channel. @alextarquinio of @delegateslounge on X and @thedelegateslounge on Instagram.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (guest) co-founded the Public Interest Journalism Lab and The Reckoning Project. She's a frequent contributor to The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and The Guardian. @ngumenyuk of @PIJLab and @TRPforJustice on X and @ngumenyuk on Instagram.

References:

We discussed Nataliya’s recent article about drone warfare in The Atlantic. Here’s a gift link for nonsubscribers.

We talked about the description of drone warfare in a well-known decade-old article about drone pilots in the Nevada desert.

Nataliya mentioned this Vanity Fair article about Ukrainian children. The Reckoning Project was credited with help on this story.

Credits:

Music: Intro/Outro, Adobe Stock — Roads loop 6/Stefan Kartenberg; Awkward Mystery/Ionics; Water of the Moon/MusicLFiles. Walla tracks captured and mixed by The Delegates Lounge LLC/J. Alex Tarqu

Episode Transcript

J. Alex Tarquinio (00:08):
Welcome to the Delegates Lounge.
Pull up a chair.
I'm Alex Tarquinio, ajournalist based at the United
Nations here in New York Cityand your emcee for this podcast
featuring some of the mostinfluential minds in the world
today.
Settle in for some rivetingtete-a-tete, available wherever
you listen to podcasts.
Welcome back.

(00:36):
Today represents a newbeginning.
This is the first episode ofthe Delegates Lounge published
simultaneously to our newYouTube channel.
In the little while since webrought you the Midsummer
Special, we've been busybackfilling the channel with our
previous episodes.
For our regular listeners.
We'll continue to publish toApple Podcasts and Spotify, but

(00:59):
YouTube lets you watch videosand subtitles translated into a
variety of languages, fromArabic to Ukrainian.
Search for the Delegates Loungeon YouTube and be sure to hit
the subscribe button.
In today's episode, we bring youour conversation with the
prominent Ukrainian journalist,Nataliya Gumenyuk.

(01:20):
I was fortunate to meet Nataliaat a small gathering in her
honor at the Ukrainian Instituteof America, a cultural center
here in New York that sitsacross the street from the
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Natalia was in town for a fewdays recently, arriving from
London where she gave openingremarks at the world premiere of
the Reckoning, a limited-rundocumentary play that ran at the

(01:42):
Arcola Theater in June.
She is a co-founder of both theReckoning, a limited-run
documentary play that ran at theArcola Theater in June.
She is a co-founder of both theReckoning Project, which
gathers testimonies fromsurvivors in the
Russian-occupied territories ofUkraine, and the Public Interest
Journalism Lab, a Kiev-basedNGO focused on an
interdisciplinary approach tojournalism.

(02:02):
Natalia is an independentjournalist herself, specializing
in foreign affairs and conflictreporting.
She's a regular contributor tointernational publications like
the Atlantic Foreign Affairs andthe Guardian.
Our conversation touches on herrecent article for the Atlantic
about drone warfare, so we'llinclude a gift link to that in

(02:23):
the show notes.
We also talked about prisonerswaps, the forced relocation of
Ukrainian children, ukraine'sOperation Spiderweb, the highly
successful covert drone attackdeep inside Russia, and Victoria

(02:43):
Roshina, the Ukrainianjournalist who died in Russian
detention.
Natalia had worked with her todescribe Victoria's last
reporting trip to the occupiedterritories before her capture.
Natalia says Victoria weighedaround 35 kilos after her time
in Russian captivity.
For our American listenersthat's less than 80 pounds.
While recording ourconversation in Manhattan, we

(03:06):
were interrupted by an air raidalert from Kiev on Natalia's
phone Proof as if any wereneeded that Ukrainians can leave
the war zone, but the wardoesn't entirely leave them.
Here's our conversation.
Nataliya Gumenyuk, thank youfor joining us in the Delegates'

(03:34):
Lounge.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (03:35):
It's my pleasure.

J. Alex Tarquinio (03:42):
I was fortunate enough to meet you at
the Ukrainian Institute theother day and hear a little bit
of your story.
So, before 2014 and the warcame to Ukraine, you wanted to
be a war correspondent and youwere a war correspondent.
Tell us a little bit about that.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (03:51):
So when I went to the university in uh to
Southern, you know it was stillkind of Ukraine was post
authoritarian country, but therewas a very clear idea that the
journalism should be independent.
So I was always interested inthe foreign news.
So I started to work as aforeign news correspondent and,

(04:12):
particularly prior to the 2014,to the Russian invasion, I
became very interested in theMiddle East and the Arab Spring
because I was always interestedin the idea of people standing
up for justice and spent acouple of years traveling around
the Middle East, in particularEgypt, iraq, tunisia, all other

(04:34):
countries, looking at how mygeneration was like trying to
change something in theircountries.
But in 2013, you know, what wecalled the Revolution of Dignity
started, the Maidan Revolution,which was mainly the protest
against police brutality andinjustice.
So I returned home, weco-founded an independent TV

(04:55):
station called Hromadsky, whichwas a grassroots public
broadcaster.
You know, when there is no yetlegislation, there is no kind of
state structure, but we'll dothe media which serves the
public.
And when Russia occupied Crimea,I probably was one of the few
fit to go undercover to Crimea,go to the eastern Ukraine and

(05:16):
becoming this kind of conflictreporter in my own country.
By the way, my experience as aforeign correspondent was
extremely helpful, particularlybecause it's very hard to pass
to the foreign audience, youknow, to tell the story about
suffering far away, so they carewhat I always believe and try
to tell the story both to theUkrainians and now when I'm, for

(05:38):
instance, writing for theAmericans.
Actually, suffering is veryuniversal and we often try to
portray the conflicts, you know,in this very geopolitical way
russian speakers, ukrainianspeakers, pro-european,
pro-russian and in the middleeast, like religious and secular
, islamist and liberals, whichis not the case.

(05:58):
People in in the middle east, alot of them, were fighting
against police brutality, policeimpunity and corruption, and I
actually wanted to pass thismessage that all these fights
are, more, you know, relatableIn 2014,.
You know, because the war wastaking place somewhere in Crimea
, in the eastern Ukraine.

(06:19):
So after some time, if you livein the capital, you can kind of
pretend it's not about you.
If you live in the capital, youcan kind of pretend it's not
about you and you can very easyforget.
You know, like about the peopleand the Russian occupation at
that time.
So for me, I found thisexperience of telling the
faraway wars to be very helpfulfirst to cut through to the

(06:40):
audiences back home, becauseafter a couple of years you know
, at first people are excited,there is anxiety, they want to
oh, there is a war in ukraine,there are russian soldiers in
crimea.
But after a year people getused to these stories.
The suffering is still there.
But it's harder to be in thenews when it's the third year of

(07:02):
the r-fledged Russian waragainst Ukraine.
And, yes, we try also again totell this story, but now for the
global audience, and I reallytry to do it more relatable.

J. Alex Tarquinio (07:13):
What we often hear is there's the Russian
speakers and the Ukrainianspeakers, there's the people in
the East.
How do you break down thosedichotomies and tell people?
It's not as simplistic as that,so.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (07:25):
I was telling a lot of story about the
Ukrainian, like how diverse isUkraine in, particularly so the
first stories after full scaleinvasion?
I would be in bed with a Jewishcommunity, with Ukrainian
Muslim community, with people ofvarious backgrounds and also
social, social, politicalbackgrounds.
But it's more or less the mereexistence of Ukraine for the

(07:47):
Russian authoritarian regime.
It's irritation because itshows that in our part of the
world there could be thefunctioning democracy that the
very similar people, like inRussia, like in Belarus, like in
Moldova, can have democraticgovernment, can elect their own
authorities and can choose theway they live.
For the last 35 years Ukraine,with different successes, was

(08:12):
still democracy, problematicsometimes, sometimes better,
sometimes worse.
But you have civil society.
You have, you know, press.
Some press is bad, some isbetter, some is, you know, high
quality, poor quality, some ispolitically controlled.
But we have at least atradition that it's normal to
fight for freedoms, it's normalto think you know to have your
opinion.
And when I'm now reportingabout the Russian occupation in

(08:38):
the newly occupied territoriesafter 2022, it's very
interesting how one of themembers of the family of the
survivors who survived theRussian detention and tortures
told me that in currentlyoccupied territories, ukrainian
territories by Russia, it'senough to have own opinion, to

(08:59):
be suspicious and to be detained, and this is a difference.
So it's still a dichotomy.
So it's still a dichotomy, butit's a different dichotomy.
I've just recently wasinterviewed by the japanese
television.
They again asked the questionabout like language and I would
say, like what language peoplein taiwan speak?
And when I was in touch withsingaporean journalists and like

(09:20):
korean journalists, uh and theothers, they would say like,
yeah, yeah, the fact you speakChinese In Singapore, they also
speak Chinese.
They're a different country andthey have a different idea
about China than Taiwanese.
It doesn't mean you supportwhat Beijing does, and I do
think that's what Russia is inour part of the world.

(09:41):
The Russian language and ofcourse it was a language of like
empire, it was the language ofthe big country and it was a
professional language becauseuniversities were in Russian,
the technical jobs you know,like.
If you want to be consideredcivilized, you need to know this
language, otherwise you wouldbe considered like a village

(10:02):
person.

J. Alex Tarquinio (10:02):
You know so.
Even in kiev or leviv, wherethey might speak ukrainian um at
home or with their friends,they would still speak russian
at at the university you weresupposed to kind of speak
russian, to be perceived as acultural and educated person.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (10:19):
So you learn and that's make it like that
that people speak two languages.
Of course now the politicalculture change, you don't have
this pressure for 30 years, butI think even in the 90s it was
still kind of preserved that youknow, the Russian is language
of the educated.

J. Alex Tarquinio (10:33):
There was a language caste system in essence
, even in the 90s.
Was it sometime in the aughtsthat it started to change?
Or was it really the Maidanrevolution?
Because now I think in someparts with some Ukrainians they
actually look askance if youspeak Russian.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (10:50):
No, you still , it depends.
You know, in my generation weused to speak both.
So, for instance, my sister isfive years older than me and I
went to the school in 1991.
That was the year when Ukraineregained its independence, so I
went to the school in 1991.
That was the year when Ukraineregained its independence, so I
went to the school, which wasUkrainian speaking.
She went to the school fiveyears earlier than me and at

(11:13):
that time in our town, near Kiev, there was no Ukrainian in her
particular school.
So you know like she developedthese habits, which shows that,
even like a personal education,the same family people can speak
two different languages.
Uh, at home, and people usuallyin journalism are more into
language.
So you know my ukrainian isperfect.

(11:34):
She studied law and in thisfield it was always russian
domination.
So you know like the laws werewritten in russian.
You know like, traditionally,you know those people who
studied, like I don't't know,technical science, all these
kind of things what happenedtoday?
Little by little, the Ukrainianbecame the norm, even in Crimea
, even in the eastern Ukraine,because it's like state language
.
But I think that, because weare perfectly a bilingual

(11:58):
country, russia is using thelanguage as a pretext for a lot
of people, especially in theeastern Ukraine close to the
Russian border.
It's indeed a political stancesaying like no, I'll speak
Ukrainian outside of home, justto make this political point,
which is also important, thatthe Ukrainian really became kind
of a political language.
So, for instance, theminorities, kremientaros, jewish

(12:20):
, polish or wherever, armenian,georgians, roma, because you
know, the Russians were stillthis kind of lingua franca and
now they all think like no, wealso will speak Ukrainian, just
to show our loyalty for thisstate or this country.

J. Alex Tarquinio (12:36):
So the Tatars ?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (12:37):
or now speaking.
You know Ukrainian in theirpublic life.
They may speak still Russian athome, but they would like to
make this point.
So this is indeed a fight aboutdifferent political system
authoritarian, you know,democratic, but it's not like
bounded that much aroundethnicity.

J. Alex Tarquinio (12:53):
Now that's a very interesting thing because
the Ukrainian military forcesare obviously very inventive and
one I think potential advantagethey have here is that they can
understand both the mindset ofthe Russian war fighting and
special ops from their Sovietpast.
But also because they are inthat long period of application
to NATO, they understand NATO sothey can see similarities and

(13:17):
differences between those two.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (13:19):
Yes, and you know what I also found
interesting, being, you know,like, embedded in one of the
tactical operation centers withone of the brigades intercepts.
You know, intercepts they, youcan do it a lot.
People speak, mobile phones,something, and they really work
hard on intercepting the RussianRussian stalking behind the

(13:42):
line.
By the way, I should also saywhen I was speaking in spring,
quite a few different unitsreconfirmed that what they
intercepted in the Russiansspeaking, they were all telling
like, oh, we need to keep littlebecause there is Trump in there
.
So you know, like, he's on ourside and it's a bit, we'll soon
win it, which was alsoparadoxically, that's what

(14:04):
Russians say in their, theirintercepts.
I'm not telling anything, I'mjust retelling.
I'm speaking about this spring.
So they were kind of reinforcedthat it's just a bit soon.
You know the trump will get usthe best deal possible for the
russians.
But in any case, you know, like, how do soldiers speak slang?
Slang, it's not a normallanguage, if you're even a best

(14:24):
translator to know it, like as anative person.
But it was paradoxical.
I understood that like half ofthe words actually slang.
So a normal translator wouldnever know.
And it's a bit of the benefitof the ukrainians to understand
also the russian slang but theymonitor each other on telegram,
or so I hear.

J. Alex Tarquinio (14:41):
Um, the russians won't get the ukrainian
slang, they don't knowUkrainian.
Well, the other thing that'srelatively new, because you are
a young country, is thetradition of independent
journalism, because it is only alittle more than 30 years since
you were independent of theSoviet Union.
Have you noticed a change fromwhen you were first a journalism

(15:02):
student?
Has the real sense ofindependent journalism as an
important aspect that justeveryday Ukrainians would see it
as being important?
Or was it really Maidan thatchanged that?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (15:16):
So the independent journalism mattered
a lot and there is a particulartrauma in our country.
In 2001, a famous Ukrainianjournalist, georgi Gangadze, one
of the founders of the firstonline publication, ukrainska
Pravda, was killed.
Later there was aninvestigation.

(15:36):
He was kidnapped and he waskilled on the command of the
Minister of Interior.
There is still not a clearfinding whether the former
president, leonid Kuchma, wasbehind that, but it was the case
, which also led later toprotest and was a part of the,

(15:57):
you know, anti-authoritarianprotests in Ukraine early 2000s,
exactly in the time when I wasin the university.
So there is something inUkrainian kind of journalistic
DNA that you don't trustauthorities.
It's overcritical to thegovernment.
It was like that.
It is like that by default, ifyou want to be a good journalist
in Ukraine, you are supposed tocriticize the government.

(16:20):
That's how we are, that's howwe were taught.
Of course, there was thisbigger oligarchic owned channels
and indeed they were controlledby our oligarchs, by the
government, in different times.
But there was, by the way, whatis interesting, also the
competition between theoligarchs owing the political
kind of channels.
But since 2014, the system iskind of broken.
We do have a public broadcaster, have a public broadcaster.

(16:47):
Also, the role of these privatecompanies is smaller and we
have a very strong environmentof the independent media.
Of course, the money is aproblem, so a lot of Ukrainian
independent media was supportedby international donors.
But by 2022, we have like thethousands of independent
Ukrainian media and, what isalso important, that despite the
full scale invasion, wepreserve this pluralism.

(17:08):
But interesting enough that forthe whole three years we do have
leaks, we do have scandals, wedo have political investigations
into the military security.
You know very sensitive ones,but they are discussed.
There are cases when you knowthe general would be fired
because of the journalisticstory.
There are cases when you knowthe general would be fired
because of the journalisticstory.
So it's both.

(17:29):
You know, like I'm not sayingthat the Ukrainian army is
perfect, but for me, this kindof unfortunate cases of
investigation into the Ukrainiansecurity forces during the war
even if sometimes it's actuallyshows not about the problem,
about the you you know likewhat's happening with the
security service, because Idon't believe they're perfect
ever, but still you do that inthe country at war and I do

(17:53):
think it's extremely important.
Even sometimes I would say thatwe can be over critical, but I
do think it's the way how wepreserve our kind of sanity as
professionals.

J. Alex Tarquinio (18:04):
The more things change, the more they
stay same, because some of whatyou're describing could be here
or almost anywhere with the freepress.
Ukrainians are very outspoken,right.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (18:12):
In Ukraine prior to the full-scale invasion
.
Actually journalists almostfight with the president Like
I'm literally saying they wouldyell at the president.
It became a bit less heatedduring the first year of the
full-skin invasion but I thinkstill in the press conferences
the Ukrainian journalists wouldstill you know, like tell the

(18:33):
long story about what's wrongwith the way you run the country
.

J. Alex Tarquinio (18:39):
Zelensky's performance in the Oval Office
was that, viewed well.
Did that improve his popularityratings?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (18:46):
Yeah, it definitely improved his
popularity ratings.
I think the idea that he saidthat you know, like we don't
play cards, we're here not aboutplaying cards I think that was
a major thing.
You know, like to nail it down,that it's serious about human
life.
It's not a joke, you know, andit's quite unfortunate, you know
, like the trust to the US,which is diminishing.

J. Alex Tarquinio (19:09):
His popularity must be higher
recently with the OperationSpiderweb, or does that reflect
on the president?
I mean, in the United States,if there's a hugely successful
operation, there usually is areflection of the presidential
polls?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (19:24):
Yes, but you know, to be honest, I'm very
cautious about the polls.

J. Alex Tarquinio (19:28):
But yes, yeah , of course, of course.
I mean, obviously they're thesame civilians that are under,
if possible, even more rocketfire.
But is that still true?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (19:37):
positively, I think it's very important to
say that there is no kind ofreason for escalation.
The idea about the escalationis the way that Russia wants to
save the face, because it's avery practical thing for Ukraine
.
This operation served two goals.
You destroy some of the Russianequipment which would retaliate

(19:58):
, but also you force Russia toprobably be more concerned about
the targets inside of Russia,so they would have less
resources and capabilities tofight against Ukraine.
So it serves two ways toconstrain Russians, but again,
like we think about that assomething very, very practical.

J. Alex Tarquinio (20:20):
Is there a little bit of an audience of one
for this that both the Russiansand, obviously, the Ukrainian
administration are trying toreach Donald Trump?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (20:31):
The Ukrainian administration is definitely
trying to reach out to Trump.
The US is an important player.
Tragic part in this war is thatthe whole world, not just
Ukraine, found itself beingdependent on the American air
defense, because it's just theplateaued missile system which
are capable to stop the Russianballistic missiles.

(20:53):
All the rest is doable.
That is a bit like on the mercyof Donald Trump.
So, overall, ukraine definitelydoesn't want to have the bad
relations with the United States.
You really don't want to throwthe bad relations with the
United States.
You really don't want to throwthe United States into the
Russian hands.

J. Alex Tarquinio (21:07):
Tell us a little bit about the Public
Interest Journalism Lab.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (21:13):
Is this one of the reasons that you founded
that, or you co-founded it?
So we created this organization, public Interest Journalism Lab
, more or less trying to explorehow you speak to the audiences
which do not care about humanrights and sensitive issues and
how do you reach to the peoplewho distrust you with also kind
of critical message because Iwas also reporting a lot from
the US that polarization createsthe best ground for

(21:37):
conspiratorial thinking, fordistrust, for, you know, like
for erosion of democracy, and itjust happened the day we
founded COVID started.
At that time we were allinvestigating the ways you
report about the vaccination, sopeople trust the vaccines, and
it's a very interesting finding.

(21:57):
Instead of mocking the people,you really need to answer their
real concerns.
That was a huge insight becausethen, when the full-scale
invasion, you know, started, I'malways saying we need to answer
the questions of the audience,we really need to figure out
what are those vulnerabilitiesand, by default, to find the

(22:19):
ways to tell the sensitive storyin a way that people would
trust us.
What we learned the number onething from the sensitive story
in the way that people wouldtrust us?
What we learned the number onething from the Russian
propaganda?
Because beyond that they liebluntly.
They, you know like, dehumanizeUkrainians.
What they do, they try to lookinto the vulnerabilities in our
own society, exploit them andthen bring all conspiracies.

(22:42):
And then if you kind ofpersuade people to believe in
conspiracies, then they can feedother conspiracies into them
about the Russia, about the war,about something.

J. Alex Tarquinio (22:50):
So one of your objectives at the lab is to
elevate truthful journalismabove disinformation and all
that we see on the social media.
Well, it's obviously verydangerous to do journalism now
in Ukraine, particularly in theoccupied territories or near the
front lines, and I don't knowif this falls more within your

(23:10):
public journalism lab hat or thereckoning project, but I do
know that you said there are 35journalists actually being held
by Russia.
Now that you know of right, andyou also knew Victoria Roshnia,
or you were her editor and forlisteners, I'm sure our

(23:32):
listeners are familiar with thisterrible case, but when her
body was returned finally fromRussia, there were signs of
torture and some of her organshad been removed.
So you knew her personally andhad worked with her, is that?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (23:47):
right.
This is a very sad story of avery courageous Ukrainian
journalist who worked atHromadske for quite some years,
a very determined, young femaleinvestigative reporter very much
a bit too much passionate about, you know, like the duty to
serve her public.

(24:07):
So she risked her lifeliterally to go to report the
life under the occupation.
She disappeared at some time itwas summer 2023.
And then we figure out that shewas detained detained in
comunicado.
What we learned later she is ajournalist.
You know that she was detained,detained in comunicado.
What we learned later she is ajournalist.
You know she was on theassignment.

(24:27):
She was, after some time, movedto Russian territory.
She was tortured, she wastreated inhumanly.
She had a very poor healthconditions, you know like.
She was probably like thirtyfive kilos because of some you
know health care issues.
And in autumn 2024, her fatherreceived the note from the

(24:51):
Russian defense ministry thatshe's dead.
Then it took some time toretrieve her body back to
Ukraine.
It was confirmed that it washer.
You know the family is still abit in denial.
But what is, for me, strikingin that regard?
Of course, the Russians are incharge and they're responsible
for what happened, because whatwe know that she was in poor

(25:16):
health conditions already sinceDecember 2023.
That's what people who werewith her the same kind of cells
told.
So by september 2024, let's saylike 10 months, at any given
moment, they could let her go.
If there is this kind of girllike 27, which is like 35 kilos,

(25:39):
you either gave some medicalsupport, let her go.
Let her go.
And for me, the as her formereditor, as a colleague, what is
the most frightening is that isour inability to do something
about that because, compared toquite a lot of local reporters
whose names we don't know, evenin Ukraine, because this about

(26:01):
small town, some local papers,it was like quite a prominent
case.
We all knew her.
She's in the capital.
She writes for the majorindependent media.
We are well connected.
We speak for the committee toprotect journalism, for she got
a word for for the Internationalmedia women foundation.
You know I was speaking atevery single not just myself

(26:22):
events like UNESCO Press FreedomDay.
You're working for you know,like you're working and covering
the UN a lot A year ago we wereat the panel in particularly at
the UNESCO Press Freedom Day inChile, where we did the panel
and we screened the documentaryyou watched, and we brought
those journalists from whoexperienced occupation to that

(26:44):
panel.
So all the people who kind of incharge of the press freedoms in
the world were there.
She was still alive at thatpoint.
So we were there saying makingthe point like this is a
documentary about what'shappening to the ukrainian
journalists in the occupation.
Here are the journalists whosurvived occupation.
Here is our colleague.

(27:04):
She's somewhere in Russia.
She's quite know what we can doabout that.
And then, four months after, wereceived this note about her
death.
So for me it's more about thisfrustration.
You know that now, of course wecan establish the fellowship of
her name, as it often happensin case of the deceased

(27:25):
journalist.
But that's why I want to bringto attention that there are
these other 35.
We haven't saved Victoria.
Can we save others, at leastsome of them?
Can we be more bold?
I know it's difficult, I knowit depends on Russia, but I do
think if these institutionsexist, if these committees exist
, you know we still need to kindof give a try.

(27:47):
I don't blame anybody, I dounderstand.
I talk to a lot of leaders ofthese institutions, but I just
find how kind of they feelpowerless.
I just don't want us to give up.

J. Alex Tarquinio (27:58):
Advocacy is difficult.
Although the Committee toProtect Journalists, they can
really only raise awareness.
It's in fact the heads of stateand government that have to put
pressure on for this.
The advocacy group kind ofcomes to a level and then their
influence stops.
I mean, that brings us to whatyou're doing with the Reckoning

(28:18):
Project as a co-founder.
First, can we talk a little bitabout how what the Reckoning
Project does, that's differentfrom journalism.
You are in fact involved in thedocumentation of potential war
crimes and other incidents forthe future that may in fact be
used in legal proceedings aswell as journalism.
Is that right?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (28:38):
Absolutely so .
We've been reporting theRussian invasion before 2022, of
a different scale still and assoon as the full scale invasion
started.
It was very first hours, evennot days, when we talked to
colleague Peter Pomerantsev, thequite a known researcher on
propaganda, british journalistof the Ukrainian region who

(29:01):
lives here in the US.
Journalists of the Ukrainianregion who lives here in the US.
Peter kind of met at YaleUniversity, janine Giovanni,
quite an also known warcorrespondent with international
background, an American one,who covered war in Syria and the
others where the citizenjournalists were recording the
testimonies of the survivors, ofthe witnesses of the human

(29:22):
rights violation, in order tocreate the archive about the
possible litigation.
But contrary to that experienceof these various UN projects,
ukraine has a very capablejournalistic community.
We're doing films, we have theproduction company, so the
Public Interest Journalism Labright away, together with Janine
Peter, the lawyers, we createda couple of months later the

(29:50):
Reckoning Project, which is, ina nutshell, we speak to the
direct survivors of the warcrimes, not just people who saw
something sad, tragic, duringthe war, but those who either
were witnesses or survivorsthemselves, so their testimony
can be used for litigation orfor all this kind of inquiries
which the United Nationscommittees will use.

(30:12):
But in order to do so, weshould be trained in how to
speak to the people who livethrough traumatic experience.
By the way, also with thesupport of the DART.

J. Alex Tarquinio (30:22):
Center.
So the DART Center, I shouldsay, is at Columbia University
and deals with trauma journalism.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (30:26):
Yes, so I was like I did not know it had a
relationship with the.

J. Alex Tarquinio (30:29):
DART Center.
That's interesting.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (30:30):
So I knew DART Center quite early before,
so I called them on board.
You know I'm hiring thejournalists who probably do not
have this experience of workingin such intensity with the
survivors, and that would be ourendeavor for the next years.
Can you please, like, teach ushow to care about those people
and how to care about ourselvesso we learn from dart about, you

(30:54):
know, trauma-centric journalism.
We learn from the syriancolleagues and the janine's
experience.
You know this experience ofdocumentation and as of now,
there is a separate NGO, trp,run by Janine DiGiovanni, but we
collected over 600 testimoniesof the survivors.
In all cases, it's a verylengthy conversation done in a

(31:17):
very neutral way, so it cannotbe dismissed by the judge
because there were leadingquestions.
So no leading questions and alot of details.
So, for instance, we won't askthe questions what did Russia do
to you?
We would ask what did happenwith you at that day?
Whom have you seen?
How did these people look like?
What language did they speak?

(31:37):
Did they have an accent Likewere they civilians?
What kind of guns do you have?
Do you remember a call name?
So also there would be moredetails.
So it's both journalism in termsof storytelling, but also you
know way more details to behelpful to find facts for
investigators and also like thelevel of neutrality.

(31:59):
So what we collected could beused, for instance, by the UN
Commission for Tortures or UNHuman Rights Commission, because
you know like maybe sometimes ajournalistic interview could be
too emotional or would lacksome details.
We're actually doing the betterjournalism more verified, with
more evidence, with more nuanceand details, and based on these

(32:22):
testimonies the very sametestimonies we create articles,
documentaries so far over 10documentaries of different
lengths.
Our first articles were, likewith Vanity Fair, time Magazine,
the Atlantic.
Now we're also trying topublish them for the global
audiences in Chosun Ilbo inKorea, in Premier Times in
Nigeria, in City Press in SouthAfrica, in Infobuy in Argentina.

(32:45):
And we also believe that whatwe preserve could be used for
culture.
We have now play developed bythe British Theatre Dash Art
Centre, which is, you know, atthe stage in London, based on
the testimonies our team hascollected, so it's really dual
use.

J. Alex Tarquinio (33:01):
There's the legal purposes that it may be
used for someday, but now it'sbeing used in terms of the
culture, to get your message outand, we believe, also for the
memorials, for the memory.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (33:12):
So, first of all, there are people who are
testifying anonymously.
So, for instance, if they arefrom occupation, their families
are still there.
We use that for analytical work.
We are sharing that with thelaw enforcement.
We give this data with theconsent of the people very
important.

J. Alex Tarquinio (33:28):
Now your researchers, the reckoning
project.
They interview survivors,witnesses, but also survivors
directly.
The frontline has been fairlystable for some time now.
Are there more survivors whoare walking out, who are somehow
escaping, or are theyinterviewing survivors of areas
that have been liberated?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (33:48):
It's, indeed it's becoming more complicated.
So it was way easier to collecttestimonies in 2022 because
there were, let's say, threewaves of the liberation in the
northern Ukraine, in thesouthern, in the eastern Ukraine
, near Kharkiv, izum, and thenlater in Kherson.
So we were able to get intode-occupied territories and see

(34:13):
those detention centers,devastated villages talk to the
villages from where people werekidnapped.
But it's the story of 2022.
And people were very willing tospeak about what's going in the
occup.
The longer occupation lasts,there are more atrocities
happening.
But it's harder for the peopleto speak because they feel it's

(34:34):
more dangerous if in 2022, 2023,they were thinking like I'll
tell that story because, like,in a couple of months, the
ukrainian army, would you know,regain access to this territory
and my relatives would be freed.
There were people thinking, hmm, what if they will stay in the
occupation for another year?
Maybe I don't need to tell thatstory.
And also, ukraine country to alot of other countries at war

(34:57):
have the capable law enforcement.
So we always try to talk to thepeople who are not covered by
the law enforcement.
We try not to duplicate work.
So today, the person from theoccupation would probably find
it more trustworthy to talk to ajournalist and more safe,
rather than to a Ukrainianprosecutor.

J. Alex Tarquinio (35:17):
You talked about sort of retooling your
skills, but are all theresearchers journalists In our
case?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (35:24):
all the researchers are journalists and
filmmakers, but documentaryfilmmakers, which I believe is
almost the journalist.
Right Among us there is anational journalist who did work
in human rights, or they werethe local reporters, which is
also very special because ifyou're a local reporter, you
connect it on a different level.

(35:44):
So I do think that we also havea bit of the network of the
people with this, you know, likeconnection to their own areas,
which makes it also very unique.
That's why I really stronglybelieve in the Reckoning Project
, this type of thinking that inthe end it's not like
international human rightsorganization.
We're in touch with thesepeople.

J. Alex Tarquinio (36:08):
We know who they are and there is a network
to pass information.
Has the Reckoning Project begunthe process of working either
with Ukrainian law enforcementor with international aid?
You know, maybe a UnitedNations agency to find out of
what you are gathering ispotentially of use.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (36:22):
Indeed In Ukrainian criminal code.
You cannot use somebody else'stestimony.
The prosecutor should interviewthe person himself or herself.
However, what we did and ittook us some time to develop
kind of this capacity we passthem.
What we have in kind of formatbecause everything is analyzed,

(36:43):
shortened.
What we have in kind of formatbecause everything is analyzed
shortened, because you cannotgive to prosecutor three hour
long tape.
What we give is like the shortabstract.
Do we have that?
Is it important story?
Are we missing something?
Should we interview this personand even read what is in this,
you know, like abstract and whatis in this summary and say like
, oh, actually this person haveseen something which we are

(37:04):
missing.
So that's what we're doing.
We are supplementing their work.

J. Alex Tarquinio (37:09):
You're like almost pre-interviewing, yeah,
and perhaps thinking ofdifferent questions, because you
weren't coming from a lawenforcement background.
You're coming from journalismbackground.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (37:17):
Perhaps you had a question they hadn't
considered so we provide thatnow up to three years.
I know that Ukrainian lawenforcement it's the way how
most of the crimes would beinvestigated.
It's not some court in theHague or something.

J. Alex Tarquinio (37:31):
Have you looked at the Hague so how it
works?
I mean, have you talked to themto see?
Would this be evidence thatwould be usable in that context?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (37:43):
So, the lawyers of the Reckoning Project
.
Strategy is also to use everypossible venue.
So they are regularly preparingthe submissions to most of the
UN bodies.
You know various commission ofinquiries, torture, human rights
commission on elderly.
You know this type of thing.
So that's working.
There is a particularrapporteur on the you know the

(38:07):
Russian war, so we are ready togive some of the testimonies you
know on.
You know, like on demand Incase of ICC.
It's interesting.
First of all, for ICC it's veryimportant to preserve their
neutrality.
So the reckoning project did goto the ICC, the ICC for the sake

(38:28):
of credibility, doesn't openlyspeak about how it cooperates
with the organizations.
It takes a lot from everybody,but they wouldn't admit that.
So everybody cooperates withICC.
They take everybody's data, butthere is nothing like the
cooperation of the ICC withindependent organizations.
And I should also say a lot ofthese stories are not really

(38:51):
public.
The judges, actually, and theinvestigators don't want to work
with a story which is toopublic if you're speaking about
the individual story.
So there is a bit of a tensionbetween the legal work and the
journalistic work.
So therefore we are a bitprotective about our survivors.
Yet if they want to speak,they're right, if they think

(39:11):
it's the only way to do that, ifthey really want to seek the
justice for some, some have thiscourage, some have this
strength to speak.
They still can fight their case.
But we need to warn them.
We, it's our duty to warn them.
And some people speak, you know, choose to be public.
Sometimes it's really look,it's all about the case.

(39:31):
So, for instance, we wantVladimir Putin to be charged for
the deportation of theUkrainian children.
Okay, maybe in that particularinvestigation there would be
different children.
The main is for him to becharged and you do it both ways.
Some people are very pivotal forcreating awareness, for making
the public case, because withoutthe public case maybe there

(39:52):
won't be investigation.
The first case opened by ICCagainst the Russian president,
vladimir Putin, on the case ofthe deportation we know that we
broke the story about thedeportation and the people who
we discovered are kind of theface of the story of the
deportation In autumn 2022, wefound, you know like we

(40:15):
published the first, like biggerarticle about the deportation
of three Ukrainian children andattempt to adopt them in Russia
Became quite a famous story.
So that particular story of thefamily of Mezhevi, which is
written also at the Kennedy Fair, they are like a showcase for
that ICC investigation.
We would be concerned thatpeople who are interviewed too

(40:37):
many times by the media might bedropped as witnesses by the ICC
.
But you know, like breakingthis case as a case, you know
bringing attention to the issueof the deportation of the
children, so partially we cansay like we did participate in
shaping that arrest warrant,it's definitely like we feel
that there is a credit of ourwork in this particular

(41:00):
investigation and the TRPorganization run by Janine
Giovanni has a separate projecton interviewing the parents and
the guardians about researchingthe indoctrination which is
happening in the occupiedterritories.
So there is a specific role ofthe TRP organization in

(41:21):
documenting this story of thedeportation of the children.
Well, in Ukraine and everywhere, they today say that like,
unless there is immediateattention, unless people care,
there are less chances to openthe case.
So you know, it's kind of aduality.

J. Alex Tarquinio (41:38):
So there is a duality between those that are
maybe more public-facedsurvivors, but perhaps the
actual case will be brought onOn somebody else somebody else
that the general public hasnever read about.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (41:48):
What also is done.
A year ago it was theinitiative of the Reckoning
Project lawyers we initiated thecriminal complaint to the
Federal Court of Argentina,using the universal jurisdiction
, traveling with a Ukrainian manwho survived tortures and
electrocution in occupied partof Ukraine.
The case is still there.

(42:09):
It's up to the Argentinianjudge to consider whether they
would open the case.
What was for us absolutelyimportant To show also, it's a
story of one man and we cannotjustify tortures even of one man
.
And it's not about the politics,it's not about global South,
it's not about of one man and wecannot justify tortures even of
one man.
And it's not about the politics, it's not about global south,
it's not about east or west.
People shouldn't be tortured.
Because Argentina has thistradition of investigating the

(42:34):
crimes connected to the illegaldetentions and tortures,
including electrocution, becauseof the dirty wars of the 80s.
So that's why it was Argentina,of the dirty wars of the 80s.
So that's why it was Argentina,and again, the Nazist
justification was indeed that wewant to show that it's not
about the West, it's not aboutEurope, that this case is
universal.

J. Alex Tarquinio (42:52):
And this was through the Reckoning Project.
It was your Reckoning Projectlawyers who came up with this
strategy.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (42:57):
Yeah, there were a couple of us there were
me, our survivor and ourArgentinian lawyers the whole
idea of the universaljurisdiction that such crimes as
the crimes against humanity andthe war crimes they are so
gross that some of the countrieshave the legislation that they
would prosecute those crimes,disregarding where they have

(43:19):
happened.

J. Alex Tarquinio (43:20):
Now are all of these survivors civilians, or
do you also interview POWsabout their time and potential
torture during their time asPOWs?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (43:31):
In our case, we work mainly with civilians.
We had these discussionstalking to the Ukrainian
prisoners of war.
Absolute majority of them werebrutally tortured.
I do think that it's also veryimportant to investigate the
crimes of grains prisoners ofwar.
The tragic part of that storyis that there is always this

(43:51):
kind of concern that if youspeak too much about that, they
would stop releasing them.

J. Alex Tarquinio (43:57):
Ah, okay, no, there was just a large swap
recently.
That makes sense.
It was a very special swap.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (44:05):
What makes this swap very special is that
Russia actually didn't give muchof the prisoners of war.
What they did, they returned alot of inmates.
You know, like the people whowere in usual prisons for
criminal offense in the occupiedterritories were in usual
prisons for criminal offense inthe occupied territories.

(44:26):
They can just, you know, likegrab thousands of the Ukrainians
under their command and givethem.
Of course we're happy to havethem.
What you really think aboutvery well, thought prisoners
exchange when you really need tosave the life of the journalist
and or some kind of Ukrainianmilitary or some political
activists.
That's what they are doingUsing the people as the
bargaining chip, and just liketaking these poor inmates

(44:49):
charged for the criminal offensesomewhere in the occupation.
And then you're like who arethese people?
They return Okay, that letsthem free, but you know it's a
bit different thing.

J. Alex Tarquinio (44:58):
Well, in fact hostages are a renewable
resource.
As long as they occupy theterritory, they can take more
hostages all too easily.
So but of course, with the POWsobviously the military don't
want to jeopardize.
I'm talking about real POW forPOW exchanges, that's true.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (45:18):
but you know?
That's the whole point.
If you form a prisoner, amilitary, you have the right to
tell what you want, and there isno Ukrainian state to tell the
person not to do that.

J. Alex Tarquinio (45:31):
If they're a former military, if they're
still in uniform, if they remainin uniform In Ukraine, people
don't care, they will stillspeak.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (45:38):
The problem that it is the Russians, then,
are very, very negative.
They're saying we're giving youthese people, but they stop
speaking.
But they start speaking.
Ukrainian state cannot forbidpeople to speak.
You know, like it's actuallythe clash of the mindset, which
is also very paradoxicallytragic during this war.

J. Alex Tarquinio (45:57):
That is probably the greatest difference
between Russia and Ukraine.
It's not the language or theaccent.
If someone does speak Russianwith a Ukrainian accent, it's
actually the mindset.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (46:07):
Absolutely.
What I also understood thatthis clash creates.
It's kind of a very violentsituation in which you imagine
you're a Ukrainian, you'reprobably 25 or 30, lady or
gentleman worked in a farm, born, let's say, end of the Soviet
Union, early independence.
You have no idea why you shouldbecome the part of Russia.

(46:28):
You speak the language youspeak, it's your town.
What is also strange that theRussians also couldn't
understand that it's notPresident Zelensky, given the
order from the farmer in somekind of village to behave as he
behaves, to be loyal toUkrainian land, to have only
opinion about what religions hewants.
You know he has, what views hehas.

(46:49):
There is no such a line inUkraine.
It's an individual and they aretrying to kind of break their
spirits.
They're like tell us, give us asecret, who has ordered you to
do this?
And you know nobody.
So for them it's also what weunderstood from these interviews
of the survivors is that theyalso don't understand what these
Russians want from them.

J. Alex Tarquinio (47:10):
You know, like because they talk about the
russification, the changes inthe education, of course.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (47:15):
That's also very tragic with this occupation
, that in Crimea and in theeastern Ukraine and I wrote
quite a big piece for theforeign affairs about those,
like experience of theoccupation for the last 12 years
it's like as if the toolkit hasbeen developed on how to occupy
fast.
It took them some years tounderstand how you change the

(47:39):
healthcare system, how youprovide passports, how you
create an education in how you,you know, like create an
education in which Ukrainedoesn't exist, in which I don't
know, like there is this greatRussian empire, but what
happened that in the newlyoccupied territories after 2022,
they have already the tool.
They already know how toindoctrinate kids, they already
know how to create thelegislation.

(48:00):
So, for instance, like now, youwould have the situation in
which you know, if you don'ttake the Russian passport, for
instance, you probably won't beable to call an ambulance and
things like that.
That's why, for Ukrainians,what we should also say very
much occupation is way morescarier than the war, the life

(48:20):
under the.
You know what we call the war.
It's one thing.
I think we need a bit to bevery clear with the vocabulary.
What we have in Ukraine, it'sforeign invasion and, of course,
president Trump may say stopthe war, but if you understand
that it's invasion, occupationis not peace, occupation is a
war.

(48:41):
Occupation is a part of the war.
So what ukrainians are nowforced to agree, it's a part of
the country, stop to defenditself from the invasion and
agree for the occupation.
In both cases, it's don't stopthe war, it do not stop
suffering.
Of course, you can successfullydefend yourself this is our

(49:01):
experience of the three years Ifyou fight back, if you have the
army, if you have, like ithappened, ukrainian army freed
Kiev region, kharkiv region,kherson region and you can live
there, you can breathe there,you can go to school.
The bomb can still fall, but thechances of you surviving is
there.
If the Ukrainian army defendthe city, if you live under the

(49:24):
occupation, there are verylittle chances.
What will happen to you?
You can be detained, you can bein prison.
So, in a way, I think at thismoment, when there is this kind
of talks everywhere aboutnegotiations, I do think it's
very important to use thisvocabulary of how we see these
people, how we see the solutions.

(49:45):
Is occupation the peace?
Can you just stop?
Defend itself from the invasion, and that would end the war.
That's interesting.

J. Alex Tarquinio (49:55):
I should also make it clear to listeners
you're obviously independent ofthe United Nations and its
agencies and bodies.
You're also independent of theUkrainian government military,
the Zelensky administration.
Is that right?

Frank Radford (50:07):
Sure.

J. Alex Tarquinio (50:08):
Your most recent article for the Atlantic
was on drones, and you did go inbed and meet with drone
operators, not certain how closeyou were to the front line
there.
Sure, were they at allreflective?
I mean, are they aware thatthey are really in the process
of inventing a new way of warfighting?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (50:26):
Yes, at this stage, Ukrainian military are
aware that they're inventingsomething totally new, because
even I've been embedded withthree various brigades in the
different parts of the frontline.
Different parts of the frontline, uh, the one very kind of
high tech, the one which waskind of a legendary traditional

(50:46):
mechanic infantry brigade, andquite a like a smaller one which
was created after 2022 from thepeople from the territorial
defense very different, andalmost everybody to whom I
talked kind of reconfirmed thatthe way they fight the war is
very different from how theyused to do a year ago.

J. Alex Tarquinio (51:06):
A year ago.
It has changed that much thedrone technology and tactics.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (51:11):
Absolutely, because before the drones were
additional supplementary tosomething you know they help to
target, they help to do that,but now the drones are mainly
used instead of the artillery.
So the whole artillery ismainly, you know, the whole.

J. Alex Tarquinio (51:26):
I mean, is that a capacity issue?
They don't have enoughartillery.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (51:29):
There was no enough artillery, so it became
more precise and different.
And what also for me was veryit's probably very important
also for your audience to tell,because you know, like the drone
warfare was not new.
You know there is Obamadoctrine, there was drones in
Pakistan.
You know it's totally not new.
But what for me was importantalso to say that I read myself

(51:50):
years ago this article whenthere was like a guy in Nevada
targeting somebody inAfghanistan.

J. Alex Tarquinio (51:54):
Right, I've read that everywhere.
Everybody's read that.
But everyone who's interestedin drones has read that article.
Yeah, everybody read thatarticle, you know which is very
different.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (52:03):
It's a very frontline experience.
You're a few kilometers, youare in a dangerous position,
just you know, in the frontline.

J. Alex Tarquinio (52:11):
So there's not that well philosophical
issue of the disconnect, ofbeing at a harm's way.
There is no disconnect, you areat harm's way.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (52:18):
You're in a dangerous position, you can be
killed at any given moment andyou operating, you know like,
from the field, from the foxhole, from the dugout has the
ukrainian military startedevolving their doctrine for
drone technology, or they'remaking up on the fly?
uh, there is, you know, but thedrug twin is more or less the
same.
The doctrine is what is verytricky about the this warfare,

(52:41):
the nato doctrine, the usual.
What I understand as ajournalist is that you need to
control the sky so you cannotjust have this very gruesome
infantry war.
I think that that's how DonaldTrump sees it.
You know, when the infantry isfighting infantry, it's very
devastating and that's what theUkrainians are really trying to
say.
So far.
We had to fight.

(53:02):
We had to fight a lot, thiskind of old-fashioned infantry
war which none of the NATOcountries would ever do, because
you risk the life of your ownpeople.
What you need to do is tocontrol the sky and do not allow
the enemy come so close to yourfront, to your line, so you
don't need to risk the life ofyour infantry.

(53:24):
You cut them out further andthe strike deep, strike further
into the Russian command andcontrol center can stop that.
That's why Ukraine argued solong that allow us to use the
strikes in depth, so Russiancommand and control centers
would be destroyed.
In the end, it's destroyed lessof the russian soldiers, to be

(53:47):
honest, less of the human rightsfrom the russians, but it
destroys less of the lives ofthe ukrainians.
You just don't let them go.
It's in fact you can do thisand ukraine has the manpower
issue.

J. Alex Tarquinio (53:58):
Obviously it's a smaller country, so you
need to.
Besides for the humanisticreasons you want to preserve
your lives, for practicalreasons you need to preserve yes
, because it's not about theresources, it's about
capabilities, and these aredifferent things.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (54:12):
Resource wise , ukraine is smaller than russia
.
It has lesser resources.
In terms of capabilities,capabilities are not always
equal.
You, you can have bettercapabilities, you can be
efficient with.
You know like in the way howyou work with your resources.
So, in this regard, what droneshelp?

(54:32):
It's to deny Russiansuperiority on air, at least to
some extent, something which wewere not getting from quite a
lot of our Western allies.
So Ukraine needed to developits own capability at least.

J. Alex Tarquinio (54:47):
Yes, to control the sky or at least have
parity.

Frank Radford (54:50):
I mean I control the sky.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (54:52):
I don't know if that's feasible to join so
meaning like yes, you probablycannot like control the skies
over the Russian controlledterritory, but you deny them the
opportunity to control theskies over the russian
controlled territory, but youdeny them the opportunity to
control the skies about you.
So you have this exactly kindof parody which in the end save
the lives of your own soldiers.

(55:13):
So, yes, kind of doctrinechanged.
I do believe that what Iunderstand from the talking to
the military the doctrine ischanged, but by the different
tool and I do think it's even.
I think what is alsofascinating was the spider web
operation, which also kind ofshows very well that Russia is
not invincible.
But again, technology is notexpensive.

(55:36):
In fact, what was fascinatingin this operation is not that
Ukraine invented some kind ofincredible drones.
You know, the ballisticmissiles to target Russia that
far in Siberia cost millions andthese drones are cheap.
But you needed to have aplanning, a system operation 15
months reportedly.

(55:57):
Yes, it's about message, butthe destruction of the
particular bombers and thefighter jets especially.
Clearly, knowing that theRussian resources are also not
infinite, you know like theyhave a particular number of
these jets.
Those jets were produced duringthe Soviet times, meaning they
won't produce them very fast.
You know where we made a hugemistake.

(56:21):
I think that the Ukrainians also, for some time, not like
underestimated the russian armybecause, also, I should say,
like they're fighting, they areredeveloping itself, they're
learning about the drones.
I also don't like they'relearning.
They have the scale, they'redeveloping.
They bought the technology from, you know, iran to develop the
shahid drones which are, youknow, terrorizingizing Ukrainian

(56:41):
cities.
They do have the North Koreantroops.
They have the supply of theartillery shells from North
Korea.
They're using North Koreanballistic missiles.
So there is a lot.
How also the Russian army isevolving.
They are capable to spend, youknow, a huge budget.
But what we didn't expect from,I think, like in early 2022,
when the full invasion happened,kind of from the films and from

(57:05):
the stereotypes, you thoughtlike, oh, there is a Russian
army, the Ukrainian army,probably the Russian army is a
bit more organized, but they'redrinking more, you know, like
something like that on the humanlevel.
But you know what we missed?
That during the war in Chechnya, during the war in Syria, this
army was using the war crimes asa way to wage the war.

(57:26):
It's a very brutal army whichuses this kind of chaos and
impunity, which has a system oftortures which has a system you
know, like with the ReckoningProject, with our lawyers, with
what we do.
We also understand the patterns.
The people tortured by theRussianussian soldiers in the
north, in the south, in the east, in 2022, in 23, 2024 and today

(57:48):
are tortured in a similar way.
The towns are destroyed anderased and wiped out.
You know, in the very similarway the russians would target
the hospital.
Hospital is protected becausethey know that then the people
would leave the town becausethey are not capable to occupy
the towns in the, let's say,usual way.

(58:08):
What they can do is spendmonths to obliterate Bakhmut, so
there is no city.
And then the Ukrainian.
What is the Russian strategy ofwaging this war?
And they are moving very slow.
They're not really capable tooccupy a big town.
What they can do is to destroyit to extent that there is no

(58:31):
point for the Ukrainian army tohold into the piece of land.
You know where.
You can't even hide.
Well, Mariupol would be theother classic example, mariupol,
is a bit different in thisregard because at the early
stage of the war it was veryabrupt.
They were able to occupyMariupol within the first months
of the war but, if we wouldremember, since summer 2022,

(58:53):
they were not capable to occupyany bigger town, keeping it
intact.
What they were able later tofight for five months for Bahmut
destroy Bahmut.
Fight for five months, I knowAvdiivka destroy it.
So they literally are capableto occupy it, destroy it.
Land and claim it.

J. Alex Tarquinio (59:11):
It's the land that they want, not the city.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (59:14):
Sometimes they claim the victory and then
you understand that it was avillage of like three people.
What does they want?
To kind of create this image.

J. Alex Tarquinio (59:24):
they're winning, so but that's what I'm
saying, that do you think it'spartly a pr war for for the oval
office and maybe other?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (59:31):
the russians.
The russians try to persuadethe world that they are winning
this war, but I find this ideais that just because they're big
, they're invincible quite aprimitive one.

J. Alex Tarquinio (59:41):
But um, but there's the sledgehammer
approach and that we saw reallyfrom Progozhin.
Yeah.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (59:48):
So, of course , for Ukraine it's harder to
fight its war because we valueour soldiers.
You know, and let me becritical, I won't say every
commander.
I probably think that therewould be some commander who
cares less and who is, you know,risking too much.
So it's not like, oh, everysingle Ukrainian commander is
kind of cherishing the life ofevery single.

(01:00:09):
You know, I don't want toromanticize it, there are
problems.
The Ukrainian army is a huge,you know, operation of a lot of
people who are newly trained,who came to service just after
2022.
You know what is fascinatingwith the Ukrainian army?
Ukraine has 70,000 soldiers.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:00:28):
Okay, 70,000.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:00:29):
Before 2014.
Then, before 2022, we developedan army of 300,000.
300,000.
Now it's almost 2 million.
Who are these people?
Usual people, normal people, myfriends, my colleagues, your
barista, your janitor, yourprofessor, CEO, wherever you
know all kind of usual peoplethey need to train.

(01:00:51):
It's an army of civilians whichhave to force to live in a very
different mindset of like,obeying, having the military
rules.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:01:01):
Does every family have Almost every.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:01:04):
Ukrainian family has somebody who is
serving almost and definitely acolleague, a friend or whatever,
but it's like a usual people.
So again, like it's quite anarmy.
Somebody is less trained,somebody is too old, somebody is
not physically capable.
You know, sometimes you reallydo stupid things, sometimes you
maybe some brigades are stronger, some are lesser, some do, you

(01:01:28):
know, not very efficient way ofrationing the equipment.
So I won't romanticizeukrainian army, but still, what
is the main task for theukrainian soldier?
What is ukrainian soldier is,for instance, in case of
becoming a prisoner of war, saveyour life.
Tell any crap you know, like Idon't know.

(01:01:49):
Tell you have a loyalty toPutin wherever.
Save your life.
What the Russian soldier saidlike don't give up, they will
shoot the traitor, they willshoot and destroy their own
people.
You know that is a difference.
But also the idea of the cannonfodder, just throwing people
what term is existing?
In russian it's called.

(01:02:09):
I even ever saw it, it's socommon.
It's like in in our language islike the usual phrase.
It's called like thereconnaissance during the fight,
which means you throw thepeople like five people, for
clearly they would be shelledfor one reason that then the
Ukrainians would identify.

(01:02:30):
You can identify from whereUkrainians are shelling You're
literally using them as a humantrap.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:02:35):
Right, you're counting the guns with their
bodies.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:02:37):
You're counting their guns with their
bodies and it's like, you know,like that's the most common
things and they are doing itconstantly.
So it's really a very inhumane,but also the the odd part of it
that now in the russian armythey have the huge incentives to
people fight.
So it's really like kind of abit of mercenary army, because a

(01:02:59):
lot of people in russia havemortgages that their way.
It's not like they're forced togo, they make this choice
because then probably they wouldpay the mortgage.
You know, it would bring somemoney.
And I find it also a bit like animmoral kind of like kind of
whole, immorally kind of strangeidea when out of your citizens
you're creating this kind ofarmy of mercenaries from your

(01:03:20):
own citizens, saying like okay,earning money for a mortgage,
but go to the foreign countryand kill people in any ways,
it's like, but they're usingthis practice which is really
inhumane, which is hard to fight.
But the answer is very clear.
That's why, since they areready to risk the life of their
soldiers, probably you better,you know, like not let them be

(01:03:41):
closed, because you won't fightthe very same way so that's
where the drones come in and whythe ukraine army has become so
creative with their use ofdrones yep you find your other
way.
Yeah, it took me some time alsoto rethink the whole idea of the
war.
Somebody who comes from thehuman rights Because in the end

(01:04:01):
you clearly understand theexperience of the Crimea
occupation, the experience ofthe Donbass occupation say that
there is no way you pacifysomebody who is pointing gun at
you and still telling I want tokill you.
There is a level to how muchyou can tell a person with a gun
don't kill me.
You can beg, but it doesn'thelp.
And sometimes as a human, evenlike if you're a human, don't

(01:04:22):
kill me.
You can beg, but it doesn'thelp.
And sometimes as a human, evenlike if you're a humanist, even
if you're a person who believein reconciliation, in the
negotiations.
I was brought up, I was trainedin the idea of the peace,
negotiations, reconciliations,that there is always diplomatic
way.
No, no, we understand thatsometimes, again, some of the

(01:04:44):
malign forces, the only way iskind of your deterrence, the
only way you don't need to kill.
So, for instance, why I findthe Operation Spiderweb
successful.
Civilians were not involved.
Ukraine did something which youcan speak about.
This operation didn't harmRussian civilians.

(01:05:04):
Everybody saw that.
You know, like everybody kindof saw that the target was very
clearly military target and theRussians would what Retaliate?
With bombing a hospital, doublestrike against rescue workers.
So I do think that there is alevel.
And still, you know, I'm not infavor of the war, but I think
there is a way to stop theinvasion.

(01:05:25):
And unless Ukraine fight the warby the rules, trying to target
Russian soldiers, trying topreserve civilians, you know,
like not wasting human lives,but yes, you really understand
that there is a just war.
That's why the UN exists,that's why there are all these
Geneva Conventions, there arethese rules.
For a normal human being toaccept that there are rules of

(01:05:47):
the war, it's like oh, it's war.
No, there are rules of the warand I think that important for
me.
Ukraine is trying to play bythe rules of this war, at least
to some extent, which ispossible, and Russia don't.
If you really talk to military,to American military, they
always would say that you know,from the military point of view,
the way that Russia fights thiswar.
It's not just immoral but itdoesn't make sense.

(01:06:10):
They really cause a lot ofdamage to civilians.
It's like a bit like theterrorist kind of state.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:06:16):
Now defending your country from invasion OK,
already that's quite a lot.
Is there a desire in Ukraine,though, to go beyond that and to
make changes in Russia?
We met a fighter.
We interviewed a fighterearlier on our podcast.
He's Canadian, but he'sfighting with the Kalinowski
Regiment of Belarusianvolunteers, and he did say that

(01:06:38):
many of them do dream of goingback and changing their country
after this conflict.
Is there a sense that Russianeeds to change for the
situation to improve?
Or is it just like look, wejust want them to go away.
They can do whatever they wantin their corner of the world, as
long as they leave us alone, Ithink?

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:06:56):
the latter, because of course, the
democratic Russia would be atleast our guarantee for more
security.
If Russia is not democratic,there is always the risk it
remains like it is.
Yet I think that for Ukraineit's not about like stopping
Russia.
Globally we are not capable,but for us it's very clear they
shouldn't have the capability tofight in that way, with that

(01:07:19):
weapon against.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:07:22):
Oh, I think it's my turn I think it's my
turn.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:07:24):
on like air alert, it's still working.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:07:28):
Oh my gosh, we are hearing an air alert from
Kiev.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:07:32):
Yes, I think, because on my one, phone, I
switch it off Even though you'retraveling.
Oh my gosh, yes yes, yes.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:07:38):
Well, that makes it real.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:07:40):
Yeah, it is.
There is an air alert.
Alert because also it's alreadynight in Ukraine, it's usually
Right.
So this is when it happens.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:07:48):
But there's one more question that you did
just remind me of, which is thatI know that many Ukrainians
were critical, while he wasalive, of Navalny and even now,
of some of the attention thatYulia Navalny gets.
But it sounds like what you'resaying is maybe the sentiment is
not honestly opposed to thepro-democracy in Russia and
obviously your husband isRussian and journalist, I should

(01:08:10):
say, and journalist in exileobviously.
Yes, but it's not to say thatthey're opposed to that.
But just stay in your own lane.
That's a separate problem.
But the Ukrainians are onlyconcerned now about preserving
Ukraine.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:08:24):
Yes, ukrainians are concerned about
preserving Ukraine.
I think that there is stillkind of some, maybe
disappointment I would use thisterm in terms of some of the,
let's say, liberal Russians,mainly because, first of all, I
feel very bad for Alexei Navalnybeing killed.
It was a hard day for me.
I knew people whose friend hewas.
Yet I do think that the Russiansociety outside of Russia is

(01:08:48):
very automized and when I speakto a lot of Russian colleagues
and some of the friends so manyof them they are just like lost
and they can't do much, and whatthey usually feel it's like we
feel so pity and we always sayit's not about us, you feel pity
about us.
Do something you know like.
So this is the idea.

(01:09:08):
Can you do something?
It's a bit too long for youknow it's a very hard
interaction.
It's for the third year.
Meet your colleagues and friendsand they start the discussion
we can do nothing and I'mthinking are you in a better
condition than uh, and worsecondition?
I understand it's difficult.
You're in exile in New York, inBerlin.
I live in Kiev, you know so forme to listen for an hour how

(01:09:31):
difficult is their life inBerlin, in New York, and that
they can do nothing.
I will think like I couldalways also say I could do
nothing, but we're doingsomething like.
I think that there is also thisdifference that people are like
as if they are withdrawn fromtheir responsibility of serving
kind of a bigger cause.
People trying to preserve theirfamilies, you know jobs, trying

(01:09:55):
to find their way outside, asif it has nothing to do with
them.
So I think that also for someof the activists which was kind
of the criticism that some ofthe Russian activists they're
still speaking about corruptioninside Russia, but not like the
war.
But I think speaking about thecorruption is quite too outdated
.
There is something else you cando.

(01:10:17):
There is a bigger cause.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:10:18):
Well, that was, of course, Navalny's cause
and what eventually led to hisend.
But it's interesting.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:10:26):
What you're saying is it's not that you
don't support theiranti-corruption cause in Russia,
but you feel that they shouldpay more attention to what
Russia is doing in Ukraine andperhaps elsewhere in their
foreign policy and I do verymuch differentiate and that's
what I'm trying, I know I'm veryopen because, like you know,
having a Russian husband andlike trying to say that, like I
don't speak the Russian, wouldbe strange and I guess two,

(01:10:47):
three years.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:10:48):
I should say that he's with MediaZona.
I don't know.
You've also met Pussy Riot,yeah yeah, so you know a lot of
high-profile Russian dissidents.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:10:57):
I know quite a lot of high profile Russian
dissidents and I see like myperson, so you know, sometimes I
need to defend them in front ofthe Ukrainians saying like so.
But I would always say I seethe difference between the
people who just feel pity andthe people who think that they
need to do something to helpUkraine to win this war.
That is a big difference.
By the way, I think that ifpeople want to help Ukraine to

(01:11:19):
win this war, of course theyshould.
If the only thing is likelooking at me as like the
powerless victim and they can donothing about that, okay it's
maybe better than they supportPutin.
But you know like I cannottotally relate to that as a
human being.
But again, it's moredisappointed, I feel like sad
about the Russian society, thatI don't see it as a society.

(01:11:41):
I see a few individuals who tryto do something I talked to.
Sad about the Russian societythat I don't see it as a society
.
I see a few individuals who tryto do something.
I talked to one of thecolleagues who once tried to say
that his attempt was at leastto kind of gather Russian
liberals, to create somethinglike the list which would issue
the open letter, just a verysimple thing.
That would be public people whowould kind of condemn the

(01:12:03):
Russian strikes against Ukraineon the regular basis and they
didn't make this open letter andI said like, wow, if it's that
difficult, okay, what can Iexpect?
But I think it's up to them.
I know it's difficult.
I'm saying like I'm verygrateful to the Ukrainian Armed
Forces that I'm capable, aprofessional, be appreciated,

(01:12:25):
not because of pity, but becauseof what I'm doing, because I
still am able to be inside thecountry, speak to my audience,
do my job.
You would also interview me if Iwould be a Ukrainian exile
reporter and sit in this roomand I would tell you how
difficult is the life inoccupied Ukraine, because when

(01:12:45):
people speaking about the end ofthis war, they kind of
understand that what is offeredto Ukraine is to give up and to
be in exile.
So I'm really glad that we arelike seen, not not like kind of
out of pity, but as somebody whois like doing something in a
very difficult condition.
Without claiming that the warin Ukraine is more important
than any other war, I would makethe argument that the war

(01:13:08):
against Ukraine is importantbecause it's about sovereignty.
So there is a capable societyinside of Ukraine.
There is kind of democracy inUkraine.
There is a political will tosupport Ukraine.

Frank Radford (01:13:21):
There is a legitimate will to support
Ukraine.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:13:24):
There is a legitimate framework to support
Ukraine, to help Ukraine todefend its population.
There is political will to wageand to undergo investigation,
to search for accountability.
So if we are not able to doanything, to do much in case of
Ukraine, can we do anything elseat all?

(01:13:45):
And I do think that we can doit in Ukraine so we can make it
in more difficult terrains.
But then you can say like, oh,if you can't deal with Ukraine
in the UN, how you can sort outall these complicated other
issues?
I'm saying that, like there isnothing extraordinary about
Ukrainians, we are forced to doextraordinary things, which I

(01:14:09):
respect a lot in my compatriots.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:14:11):
So it's ordinary people in extraordinary
circumstances.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:14:14):
We just happen to be in this survival
mode and forces people to showtheir worst and their best.
Somehow I saw the best.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:14:27):
Natalia, thank you so much for joining us
in the Delegates' Lounge.

Nataliya Gumenyuk (01:14:30):
Thank you for having me.

Frank Radford (01:14:36):
And that's it from the Delegates' Lounge.
We'd like to thank our esteemedguests, who have graciously
allowed us to share theirhard-earned insights into what
really matters.
And then there's you, ourlisteners, who we hope are
sufficiently edified to clamorfor more of the same.
Do drop in for a weekly episodeon Thursday, or, from time to
time if we're on the road, forspecial events, in which case
there'll be a bonus episode.
Subscribe wherever you listento podcasts and, if you like

(01:14:59):
what you've heard, please take amoment to rate or review the
show, as it helps others whoshare your abiding interest in
world affairs to find their wayto the Delegates Lounge.
You can connect with us on manypopular social media platforms
or reach out to us directly atinfothedelicatesloungecom.
We're a small team so we can'trespond to every message, but we
will read them.
Our show this week was writtenand produced by the host and by

(01:15:20):
yours truly executive producer,frank Radford.
Until next time, keep calm andcurious.