German War Journalist REVEALS Realities in Ukraine | Patrik Baab

The conversation with Patrik Baab peels back a layered, contested reality in and around Ukraine: this is not simply a bilateral war between two states, but a collision of histories, geostrategies, and domestic politics that has unfolded simultaneously on multiple fronts. What emerges is a thesis both simple and unsettling—war is never only fought with bullets; it is waged through narratives, institutions, economic levers, and the reshaping of elites. Understanding the conflict requires shifting attention from headline battles to the deeper structures—local grievances and secessions, external patronage and proxy competition, global economic realignments, and the redistribution of wealth at home—that together explain why the fighting has become so intractable and so consequential for ordinary people across Europe and beyond. ## Five Wars in One The conversation offers a concise heuristic: the Ukraine conflict is five wars in one. First is the domestic civil war that ignited around 2013–2014, crystallizing after the Maidan upheavals and the violent aftermath that included armed confrontations in eastern Ukraine. Second is the localized war between Ukraine and the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, a conflict that evolved from insurgency to sustained frontline warfare. Third is the proxy dimension, where the United States, NATO, and the European Union have effectively treated Ukraine as the theater to check Russian ambitions, supplying arms, training, and political backing. Fourth is the economic struggle—an emergent global contest between a declining Western order and a rising multipolar coalition centered on BRICS, which frames sanctions, energy blocs, and trade alignments as strategic weapons. Fifth is a domestic class war inside Western countries themselves, as public funds are redirected to armaments and reconstruction while social services, pensions, and infrastructure suffer. This multi-layered framing reframes familiar events. Referendums, local militias, and waves of violence in 2014 are not peripheral footnotes but foundational moments that set trajectories of secession, securitization, and external intervention. Likewise, the role of sanctions and economic squeeze are not collateral consequences; they are levers in the wider geopolitical struggle. Treating these strands as mutually reinforcing rather than discrete helps explain the war’s persistence and why a negotiated settlement is so difficult to imagine under current power structures. ## The Donbass: Life Before and After On the ground in Donbass, the lived reality diverges sharply from many Western headlines. Long-standing social ties to Russia, industrial decline, and a politically polarized Kyiv had already made the region exceptional well before 2014. The Maidan coup and the subsequent security crackdown are described as catalysts for the emergence of self-defense militias and a cascading spiral of violence: looted armories, defections, and punitive operations by Kiev. From this perspective, the proclamation of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics was not merely an act of separatism but the outcome of a violent sequence in which many locals felt there were no safe political avenues left. Baab’s reporting from multiple visits to the region highlights continuity as well as rupture. In some towns the pre-war social fabric persisted under strain—families, workplaces, local markets—but the presence of artillery, checkpoints, and the daily calculus of survival reshaped expectations for the future. Reconstruction rhetoric does not capture the daily losses: interrupted education, destroyed infrastructure, and the psychological normalization of siege conditions. When outsiders read troop movements or diplomatic communiqués, they often miss this granular suffering and the regional memory that produced the conflict in the first place. ## Media, Propaganda, and the Manufacture of Consent A dominant theme in the exchange is the role of mainstream media in shaping Western public understanding. Far from being impartial chroniclers, media institutions are characterized as active participants in a propaganda war—selecting which histories matter, which grievances are visible, and which actors are framed as legitimate. Omission is as powerful as misrepresentation: the prehistory of the Maidan, the presence of militant nationalist groups, and the internal social dynamics of eastern Ukraine are often excised from dominant narratives, producing a compressed story line of clear-cut aggression and righteous resistance. This is not to equate different kinds of propaganda, but to emphasize mechanics: most audiences in Germany and Western Europe consume a limited range of vetted sources, and those sources rely on institutional alignments—public broadcasters, think tanks, and governmental talking points—that channel particular frames. Because Western propaganda tends to be more sophisticated and subtler than Cold War-era state messaging, it is more easily internalized and less easily recognized by citizens. The result is a powerful consent machine: substantial fractions of populations accept a simplified wartime narrative that omits inconvenient complexities and silences dissenting voices. ## Euro-Atlantic Elite Capture and Ideological Colonialism A striking claim from the conversation is that European policy elites have been cultivated, often materially and educationally, within transatlantic networks that align their outlooks with U.S. strategic priorities. Foundations, exchange programs, think tanks, and career pipelines—ranging from the German Marshall Fund to elite fellowship programs—function as a soft-power infrastructure that selects and socializes future leaders. Over decades, this has produced an elite class whose career incentives and worldview are oriented toward transatlantic cohesion and, critics argue, a subordination of European strategic autonomy. The consequence is a double bind: when national leaders and institutions are embedded in this transnational apparatus, foreign policy debates shrink to acceptable parameters; dissenting voices are marginalized, and reputational capital is deployed against those who break ranks. Instances of public intellectuals or policymakers becoming ostracized for deviating from consensus are offered as evidence. Understanding these dynamics is essential because they shape not only decisions about war and peace but the institutional levers available for any future settlement—who negotiates, what alternatives are conceivable, and how domestic electorates are mobilized. ## Sanctions, Economics, and the Shifting Global Order The economic dimension of the conflict has become a theater in its own right. Sanctions were intended to isolate and degrade Russia’s capacity to wage war, but the conversation contends they have had unintended and counterproductive effects. Energy chokepoints, supply-chain disruptions, and the realignment of trade relations have accelerated a broader shift away from Western economic dominance toward an Asian-centered multipolarity. Russia’s pivot to Asia, new infrastructure projects, and growing economic ties with non-Western partners have blunted the impact of Western isolation efforts. Two consequences follow. First, Europe’s economic vulnerability has been exposed, especially in the energy sector where costly substitutions and lost competitiveness have domestic political costs. Second, the global balance is reconfiguring: nations in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere are less inclined to participate in sanctions regimes, preserving markets and supply lines for Russia and its partners. When geopolitical instruments fail to produce the intended economic collapse, their strategic utility diminishes—and their domestic political costs rise. ## The Domestic Cost: Class War and the Politics of Extraction Perhaps the most provocative strand of the conversation is the claim that the war functions as a redistributive mechanism within Weste

German War Journalist REVEALS Realities in Ukraine | Patrik Baab Today I’m talking to Patrik Baab, one of Germany’s best and most critical international journalists. Mr. Baab is the author of the German-language bestselling book “On Both Sides of the Front,” in which he shares his experiences traveling to the Donbas. He also worked for many years as an editor for the North German Broadcasting Company (NDR) and he used to work as a lecturer at two universities. Patrik Baab’s publications can be found here: https://patrikbaab.de/ https://www. buchkomplizen.de/buecher/politik/geopolitik/auf-beiden-seiten-der-front.html https://www. buchkomplizen.de/buecher/hintergrund-verlag/propaganda-presse.html https://www.zeit-fragen.ch /archiv/2025/nr-4-4-maerz-2025/fuenf-kriege-in-einem https://www.buchkomplizen.de/buecher /medien/recherchieren.html https://www.buchkomplizen.de/buecher/politik/im-spinnennetz-der- geheimdienste.html https://www.buchkomplizen.de/mediensystem-und-oeffentliche-sphaere-in-der- krise.html https://shop.tredition.com/booktitle/Staatsfeind/W-662-481-128 #M3 In 2022, I met representatives of the Kremlin for a secret talk in Moscow. And they asked me this question. They asked how to deal with crazy politicians who have lost touch with reality, who have no idea what really happens on the ground. And I answered, you cannot deal with this kind of people. It's impossible. They have to be kicked out of the business. We need a new elite. And this is a project for 20, 25, 30 years. #M2 Hello everybody, this is Pascal from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking once again to Patrik Baab, one of Germany's best and most critical international journalists. Mr. Baab is the author of the German-language bestselling book On Both Sides of the Front. It's appeared only in German, but that would be the translated title. In this book, he shares his experiences traveling to the Donbass. He also worked for many years as an editor for the North German Broadcasting Company, NDR, and he used to work as a lecturer at two different universities. Patrik, welcome back. #M3 Hello, Pascal, and thank you for inviting me to your channel. It's a great honor for me. #M2 -- 1 of 18 -- It's great having you, and it's great having you in English. The last talk we did was in German and then it was translated, but this time we said we'd do it the other way around. We said we want to focus a bit on the Donbass and the local level within this conflict because, as we talked about via email, my interpretation is that we have at least three different conflicts going on, right? On one level, we have a large structural war between the USA, NATO, and Russia. Then we have a bilateral hot shooting war between Russia and Ukraine. But then, on the third level, we also have a civil war or had a civil war inside Ukraine in these Donbass regions, right? That was going on for a long time. And you've been working a lot with the Donbass. You told me in the email exchange, though, that you see at least five conflicts. Could you tell me how you see these levels? #M3 Yes, Pascal, I think the regional level is extremely intertwined with the geopolitical level. And I see five different levels of conflict that are culminating in a historical collision in the Ukraine war. The war has now entered its fourth year, and I see five wars in one. Firstly, the Ukrainian civil war starting from 2013. Then the war between Ukraine and the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, and from 2022, involving the Russian Federation as well. Thirdly, the proxy war of the United States, NATO, and the European Union against Russia. The fourth point is the global economic war over the decline of the West. For example, the unipolar world with the United States as a hegemon and the emerging BRIC states striving for a multipolar world. And fifthly, the war of the Western elites against their own people, the class war. Every war is a class war as well. If you want, I can explain that because the first point is very interesting. It is underestimated in Western propaganda media and Western politics. The civil war in Ukraine began at the latest with the coup on the Maidan. This coup was planned long in advance and orchestrated by the United States, by NATO, and the European Union. And this violates the UN Charter's ban on intervention. The rest was in cahoots with Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and fascists. These Galician ultra-nationalists and fascists brought militant demonstrators and thousands of weapons to the Maidan. Previously, arms depots and police stations in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil had been looted. According to their own statements, they wanted to start a civil war if the Maidan failed, as Nikolai Petru, who you know very well, found out. The Right Sector was responsible for the murders on the Maidan. Around 100 people were killed. This is because the snipers were in the buildings that the Right Sector had occupied. This is shown by the detailed investigations of Professor Ivan Katchanovski from the University of Ottawa. Immediately after the coup, a wave of violence rolled through the whole country, particularly in eastern Ukraine, where people of Russian origin lived. There were violent attacks with many deaths in Odessa, Mariupol, Zaporizhzhia, and other cities. This led to the formation of self-defense militias in eastern Ukraine, which obtained weapons because the police and militia showed solidarity with -- 2 of 18 -- them, and armed units defected. The central government in Kiev relied on violence from the outset and launched the so-called anti-terror operation against the insurgents from April 6, 2014. This marked the beginning of a fight against the population in Donbas, in which at least 14,000 people, including 3,400 civilians, were killed. #M3 By 2022, before the Russian attack, this violates the UN Charter's prohibition of the use of force and makes it possible to speak of an attempted genocide. The insurgents responded by proclaiming the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, and these secessions were confirmed by two referendums in May 2014. Such a secession of a part of a country is also possible under international law against the will of the central government. The West had also accepted this in Kosovo. The establishment of the independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk marks the end of the civil war process. The second stage began at the end of April 2014, the phase of the war between Ukraine as a warring party on one side and the republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, which were supported economically, politically, and indirectly, also militarily by the Russian Federation. Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also confirmed this to the European Parliament on September 7, 2023. Contrary to what Stoltenberg said, no Russian troops were involved until February 2022. There were volunteers around Igor Girkin, for example, with the nickname Strelkov. There were Wagner mercenaries, but no regular units. The Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine some breathing space because Ukrainian units were encircled by insurgents near Debaltseve in the winter of 2014 to 2015. And to give Kiev time to rearm, as former German Chancellor Merkel and former French President Hollande explained, it was never honored by the Ukrainian side. In February 2022, Russia also abandoned the Minsk Agreement and intervened directly by invading Ukraine. This marked the beginning of the second part of the war between Ukraine on the one hand and the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk and the Russian Federation on the other side. The third level is the proxy war between the United States, NATO, and the EU, and Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump's special envoy Keith Kellogg now speak of a proxy war, as did former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Economists Jeffrey Sachs and many other historians, such as Richard Sakwa, Nikolai Petro, and Keith Van der Pijl, confirm that the United States has been trying to pull Ukraine into the Western economic orbit and to arm it militarily as a bulwark against Russia since its independence in '91. The aim was to exploit Ukraine's natural resources and to encircle Russia. This was intended to consolidate the United States' hegemonic position because, in a unipolar world, there can only be one leading power: Washington. The leading power sets the rules. Everybody else has to submit. The United States has lost this battle. In February 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that we live in a multipolar world. Negotiations are now taking place in Riyadh, not just for peace in Ukraine alone, -- 3 of 18 -- but rather claims are being staked out worldwide. The fourth level is the global economic war waged by the West against the BRICS states, which are led by Russia and China. The West has also lost this battle. The 15 sanctions packages to date, with a total of 30,000 sanctions, were aimed at isolating Russia. But they proved to be a boomerang. Without cheap Russian oil and gas, the German economy in particular is no longer competitive. With the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, for which the journalist Seymour Hersh blames his own country, the United States, the energy trap has snapped shut for Germany. The sanctions are having no effect. The Russian economy is surprisingly robust. And the 193 nations in the United Nations General Assembly, only 40 have joined the sanctions, while 153 continue to cooperate with Russia. It is not Russia that is isolated. It is the West. The European Council on Foreign Relations wrote, "United West divided from the rest." Meanwhile, Russia is expanding its economic relations with Asia. New nuclear-powered icebreakers are being built in St. Petersburg. I saw that, to make the northern passage navigable for tankers all year round. New pipelines are being built to China. New railroad lines are being built between the Caspian and the Black Seas. On a global scale, economic power is gradually shifting away from Europe and the United States to Southeast Asia. More than 3 billion people live there. The United States and Europe's share of value creation is declining, while China, in particular, is becoming even stronger economically. The United States is trying to stabilize its economy at the expense of the Europeans. As a result, Europe is becoming a backyard of Washington, but also the backyard of Russia, which will not be able to reverse its turn towards Asia. The fifth level affects the taxpayers in NATO countries, especially in Europe, employers, employees, pensioners, and the middle class as a whole. The European Union, the United States, and Germany have financed the war in Ukraine with hundreds of billions. The reconstruction will cost hundreds of billions as well, and more and more money is being spent on armaments. This money is missing from consumption, social security, pensions, education, and infrastructure. This is not military Keynesianism because John Maynard Keynes' ideas were aimed at strengthening the population's demand. As you can see, the war in Ukraine is also a war waged by governments and corporations against their own people. The war is a raid against the middle class and the poor, and it deprives them of billions and feeds the military- industrial complex in the United States. It's a class war. These are the five levels of war I see in Ukraine. #M2 Thank you very much for this comprehensive and also very well-prepared overview that you're giving us. I know I said we're going to talk about the Donbass mostly, but because of what you just said, I just need to ask you. One of the things that really flabbergasts me now is that after all of this failed sanctioning of Russia, and after all this bloodbath that we have seen, and Europe being willing and ready to ruin itself in the process, we are now at a point where the United States also tries to scavenge and exploit Europe even more, right? -- 4 of 18 -- Pu