After seven days in Ukraine as part of the Media Dialogue 2026 mission, Mika Beuster, journalist and president of the German Journalists’ Association (DJV) spoke with CIVIL MEDIA at Warsaw Airport on 25 July 2026.

The mission brought journalists and media representatives to Ukraine for meetings with Ukrainian colleagues, media organisations, public institutions, universities and civil society representatives, providing direct insight into the realities of journalism, democracy and everyday life in a country resisting Russia’s full-scale aggression.

The conversation began with an unusual and disturbing incident. Shortly after entering Ukraine, Beuster received a letter from the Russian ambassador to Germany demanding that he distance himself from an interview conducted by another journalist, an interview with which Beuster had no involvement.

He describes the letter as an attempt at psychological intimidation: a message designed not necessarily to issue an explicit threat, but to create uncertainty, provoke self-doubt and isolate journalists from one another.

In the interview, Beuster also reflects on Ukraine’s vibrant democratic life and determined civil society, the professionalism and courage of Ukrainian journalists, and the immense psychological and physical dangers under which they work.

Particularly troubling is the testimony that the PRESS marking, intended to identify and protect journalists as non-combatants, may instead expose them to deliberate targeting. That reality, Beuster warns, raises unprecedented professional and ethical questions about how journalists can protect themselves while preserving their independent, civilian status.

CIVIL MEDIA: We have spent approximately seven days in Ukraine. Just after we arrived, you received a rather unusual letter. Could you tell us what happened?

MIKA BEUSTER: Yes, indeed. When we crossed the border into Ukraine, travelled to Lutsk and checked into our hotel, I checked my emails.

The Russian ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany had written to me in my capacity as president of the DJV, the German Journalists’ Association. He demanded that I distance myself from an interview that a colleague had conducted with a Ukrainian military unit.

The ambassador claimed that the statements made in that interview amounted to a conspiracy to overthrow the Russian government and that, as the head of the journalists’ association, I should distance myself from it.

I had nothing to do with the interview. I knew nothing about it. Nevertheless, the ambassador suggested that unless I distanced myself from it, I would be associating myself with an attempt to overthrow the Russian government. Initially, I found that almost absurd.

I later learned that two or three other organisations had received similar letters. I understood it as an attempt at intimidation.

The moment I was travelling in Ukraine, I received a letter from the Russian Embassy effectively pressuring me to distance myself from a journalistic interview. I found that very peculiar.

It shows how Russian psychological operations work. They want to intimidate people. They want to place them under pressure. They want people to do whatever they are told to do.

We spoke about it, and at first I found it rather ridiculous. But once you begin discussing it, it remains in the back of your mind: What do they really mean? What do they really want?

And that is exactly what they want you to think about.

CIVIL MEDIA: Do you think they knew that you were going to spend time in Ukraine?

MIKA BEUSTER: We discussed it with several people, and they all thought it was entirely possible. Perhaps they knew. Perhaps they did not. We simply do not know.

But the point is that we are talking about it. That is how disinformation and propaganda work. You begin asking yourself: Am I the target? Am I not the target? Could I be?

That uncertainty is part of how they operate.

CIVIL MEDIA: The letter may not contain an entirely explicit threat, but it can certainly be understood as threatening. It associates you with an attempted coup, which could theoretically expose you to consequences under Russian law. Is that also part of the method?

MIKA BEUSTER: Exactly. We know that this is what they do with journalists.

They single out an individual journalist who has produced a particular report. Then they continue targeting that journalist, placing pressure on them and threatening them, while telling other journalists to distance themselves.

They see whether it works. If it does not work, they move on to the next person.

That is frightening, and I learned a lesson from this: WE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER.

They try to single us out, isolate us and tear us apart. Even when we have disagreements with colleagues—and we all know colleagues with whom we may disagree—we must stand together when a government attacks an individual journalist.

Let us stand together. Let us remain united, because that is the only response that works.

CIVIL MEDIA: Let us turn to your seven-day visit to Ukraine. What are your strongest impressions and your two or three main takeaways?

MIKA BEUSTER: The first thing all of us in the group said was how beautiful the country is and how impressive its people are.

On the surface, they appear to manage the situation exceptionally well. Later, we understood that the reality is far more complicated. But it is a beautiful country—a country in which historical grandeur and contemporary modernity exist side by side.

There is vibrancy. There is life on the streets.

We saw protests, which showed us that Ukraine is also a vibrant democracy. We saw civil society at work. People were protesting against certain government policies, but they were not questioning Ukraine’s struggle or its sovereignty. They even chanted: “Donbas is Ukraine.”

They criticised the president, but they were not calling for his resignation. They wanted a particular political decision to be changed.

The country is very vibrant and active. We saw many veterans and soldiers. We saw civil society at work.

We saw a very proud country. Ukrainian flags were visible everywhere. People want their independence. They know what they are fighting for, and they have extraordinary resolve.

At the same time, they are trying to make the best of an extremely difficult situation.

CIVIL MEDIA: You visited Ukraine in your capacity as president of the German Journalists’ Association. You were welcomed by the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, and we participated in a remarkable meeting with approximately 20 journalists, each with important experiences and stories to share. What did you take away from that meeting?

MIKA BEUSTER: All the Ukrainian journalists we met were highly professional. They know what they are doing. They are highly educated and very modern in the way they approach their work. I think there are things we can learn from them.

They are very fast, agile and immediately present where events are taking place, while remaining highly accurate at the same time. They have to work that way because they are dealing with breaking news constantly.

That is something we can learn from—to be a little more agile at times. That was one of my personal takeaways. From the meeting with the journalists’ union, my strongest impression was that the psychological pressure is immense. Everybody told us that it is taking a toll on everyday life.

We also heard heartbreaking stories.

One colleague had managed a frontline newspaper in an area that was occupied by Russian soldiers. Under occupation, she was pressured to continue working on the newspaper. Her family was threatened, but she refused to cooperate. I found that extraordinarily courageous.

We also learned about what journalists need to continue their work, including protective vests and helmets.

One important thing we learned was that protective equipment provided by Western countries is often designed to fit men, but does not necessarily fit women properly. There are anatomical differences that must be taken into account.

I had not considered this before. When I return to Germany, I will spread the word so that the assistance we provide in the future truly fits the people who need it—in every sense of the word.

We learned a great deal, and I deeply admire the resolve and courage of our Ukrainian colleagues.

CIVIL MEDIA: On Instagram, you highlighted one particularly disturbing statement made by a Ukrainian colleague during that meeting: that the PRESS marking can sometimes amount to a death sentence. Could you elaborate on that?

MIKA BEUSTER: First of all, it is important to understand that journalists are non-combatants.

We are not taking part in the war. We are reporting on the war. We are not a party to the conflict.

However, we were told that Russian soldiers appear to deliberately target journalists and may even be rewarded for killing, decapitating journalists who can be identified by the PRESS marking.

For obvious reasons, many colleagues are therefore afraid to wear those markings and choose not to wear them.

But that creates a serious ethical problem, because journalists are expected to identify themselves and make their status clearly visible.

We also discussed how journalists should respond to drones and how they can defend themselves against them.

Are journalists allowed to use electronic countermeasures against drones in order to protect themselves? These are questions that our profession has not previously had to confront in this way.

It is a completely new reality.

We are non-combatants, and we must do everything possible to protect and preserve that status. We are not taking part in hostilities. We are not fighting on behalf of either side.

We are reporting. We are journalists. We are independent, and we strive to be objective in what we report.

But, of course, we also want to survive. We need to survive.

These are extremely difficult discussions. It is crucial for our profession to find solutions that are ethically defensible and that audiences will recognise as credible and legitimate.

The implications are immense.

These are not mere technicalities. These are matters of life and death for colleagues who are reporting from the war.

And they are not reporting for their own sake. They are reporting for us—for you, for me and for everybody.

They are doing essential work, and it is important that we discuss how they can continue doing it.

Interview by Xhabir Deralla

YOUR SUPPORT TO CIVIL MATTERS.

Support independent journalism, democratic resilience, and the defense of freedom of expression. Help CIVIL counter disinformation, hybrid threats, and authoritarian influence.

Contribute NOW