On a living trail

Angelina Karjakina

On the second anniversary of the victory of the Maidan "Gromadske TV" presented the first film "Fracture" from the cycle "in the wake of the revolution." Journalists Anastasia Stanko and Angelina Karyakina decided to figure out the most controversial moments of two years ago. Angelina Karjakina and Dmitry Borko are talking about the film, Maidan and society.

- What tasks did you set yourself, making such a film?

• We were driven by a purely journalistic indignation, which has passed for two years, and we still do not know who and under what circumstances died, who they were killed, who shot from what. And we began to understand. We decided to see how our prosecutor’s office works, the management of special investigations, created specifically for this case. It turned out that much is already known and many events are restored in seconds.

Working, we realized that this would not be a separate report, but a cycle of films. In addition to the events of the 20th, causing the most acute disputes and questions, among those there will be “Titles”, and the Kharkov Congress, and some other dark places of those events.

We spoke with eyewitnesses, investigators, tried to communicate with the security forces who were there. It turned out that there is a man who did not hide that he shot at the security forces.

- And when for the first time the name of Ivan Bubenchik surfaced (Member Maidan, who openly declared that he had shot at the policemen. - Ed.)?

• Ivan’s interview is on the network since November 2014, where he tells about the same as us as in the film "Branzi" by Vladimir Tikho, which is released on February 25. We checked the main information - whether he was on the Maidan, whether he was known to the hundreds that he talks about, and whether these people had weapons. We really have a confirmation of these facts, we cannot publish them - but from what weapons and who the security forces could be killed and wounded, only a consequence can establish. Therefore, they decided to tell this story. We were very interested in what happened, why the security forces in the morning of the 20th suddenly began to retreat so abruptly from the Maidan.

- I just went there at that moment.

• And in which hour?

- This can be seen by the pictures. I went down from above from Mikhailovsky and heard fugitive shooting, saw people fleeing the bridge and climbing the hill.

• So, it was 9 with a penny ... The first dead police officers were three - PEPEESTA, an employee of the Chernihiv "Berkut" and an employee of the BB, then Nicholas Semesyuk, a specialist fighter, died at the top. After that, the special rot began to retreat, continuing to fire at the crowd.

But we analyzed the 20th, perfectly realizing that it cannot be considered at all, forgetting everything that was before him. That there were laws (nine "totalitarian laws" adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on January 16 and 28. - Ed.), Arrests, beating. It must be remembered that the first four participants of the Maidan were killed back in January - three of the firearms, one was simply scored and thrown into the cold. Then, on the 18th, was one of the most terrible days: many people died - they were simply scored to death, including titles. To do this, we made a laconic prologue, showing that the morning of the 20th was already the limit of the confrontation, by this moment everything was so pointed that it could easily collapse from any side. At this point, there were already 30 dead among the protesters, 9 among security forces and about 2000 wounded on both sides. The house of trade unions burned down, and almost the only place where it was possible to somehow hold positions, were the conservatory and KGA (Kiev City Hall.-Ed.). This morning cannot be pulled out of the whole context of events!

And here we approach the motivational side of Ivan and those people who had weapons. Indeed, according to different people, weapons were there before, but, in spite of everything, it was not used.

But frankly, it was more interesting for us to figure out the circumstances of the shooting at the institute. From what the investigators and prosecutors told, it became clear that the shooting of people went without any look at whether there was a weapon on the Maidan or not. Those 48 killed and about 80 wounded - they were without weapons. We tried to talk about this with the fighters of the special rot. Their lawyers provided us with a video where someone rises with a hunting rifle on college, but we do not see that this person shoots. And at the same time, we see how dozens of unarmed people shoot, even when they already run away from there and obviously do not pose any threat. They finished off the wounded, some fell 3-6 bullets each, and we could not find explanations for this.

Ivan, in my opinion, quite clearly and clearly explains what prompted him to open fire, and we tried to show it - that he had motives, no matter how strange and wild his act appeared.

“But it turned out that you only added oil into the fire of this stormy discussion about the bell.”

• You see, in essence, all this storm was generated by only one article, which then all reposted - an interview with Bird in Flight , made for the premiere of the film, where it is one of the main characters. And the level of rising discussions fully corresponds to the level of the heading ("I killed them in the back of the head, this is true"). In his words, much gives rise to doubts. According to the investigation, there are not a single killed in the back of the head among the dead police officers. He says that he decided to kill two or three commanders, so that "from the other side to turn on the mouth." But among the dead there are also not a single commander. However, this is not the point.

We didn’t just want to speak out about the Maidan again, to reflect something or “work out” our own mental trauma - after all, we all worked there, and people died before our eyes, our operators suffered, you were there and understand - we wanted to collect important facts.

- Attempts to understand the events of the 20th continued all this time. Yes, and I periodically tried, because, being there, I still did not understand what happened. That is, I had the original version, which was told to me at the very first hour, I lived with it. But now suddenly this man - a bell - becomes the hero of the day.

• I would not say that he is the main character of our film. He was the only one who agreed to say that he shot. We know other people who had weapons, but they did not want to talk about it. Maybe he has some kind of motivation, I do not know. Maybe I wanted to star in the cinema. I don’t even exclude that he did not shoot at all - too much of what he says does not converge with other facts. A bell says that he is a scout, a soldier, but we found confirmation only that he was undergoing military service. But in any case, for attempts to explain the events of February 20, it is very important.

- In Russia, too, a great interest in his figure ...

• (Laughs.) Well, we were ready for this! It is clear that in Russia they were very waiting for such a "bell". And what can we be ashamed, if it is true - what should we hide it? This person himself is not shy, he believes that he did the right thing. This nervous discussion around Ivan turned out to be the publication of our colleagues with such a heading - "I killed them in the back of the head, this is true", where there is too little context and little space for discussion. But in the minds of people, the interviews contacted our film, which has a completely different message and another task.

- What are you reproached with?

• The fact that this person may tell a lie, and we give it to the truth. That it could be a provocateur, that it can be in the hand of Russia, what can be an excuse for the actions of the Berkut. The film has answers to all these questions. But few people understand the subtleties.

- But you yourself say that his story was known before - what outrages them?

• Well, it is one thing when everyone knows that the security forces died, another - when a person comes out and says: I killed it.

- What is the difference?

• I think that many are not ready for public recognition of this truth. For two years, we existed in the context of the fight against propaganda and any information in the media space took place ten circles of hell. And many people developed self -censorship. It seems to them: everything that you say will immediately pick up Russia Today, will show the crucified boy. But the boy will come up with without us, and the same bell, even if he had not been, would have been invented without us. Therefore, we do not care how Russia will use it. We ourselves want to figure out everything related to our history and our very painful present. Until we answer all questions, we will not be able to move on. And a lot of different people have many questions.

For example, part of the Berkut after the Maidan went to fight east. As far as we know, they told them: you can wash away with blood everything that you did on the Maidan. Now they have returned from the war and they are dragged on interrogations, open things, and they do not understand how it is. The prosecutor's office is charged with a terrorist attack - mass executions in order to intimidate people. There is information that during the Maidan, the security forces had very dense contacts with the FSB. But even if this is not connected with Russian emissaries, we ourselves need to deal with all these events - who gave the order, for what purpose and what the role of fighters in history with accelerations, executions and other human rights violations.

- The film says that no one is charged with the death of the security forces. Society with this according to?

• We had an amnesty law. (On the prevention of criminal persecution of protests). The murder is not included in the list of crimes that fall under this law. It is necessary to figure out in what cases it is applicable. For this, everyone should be prepared to testify.

- And the prosecutor’s office is investigating the dead security forces?

• Yes, in the film there is an investigator from a special group engaged in dead police officers. But what is interesting - the security forces do not go to cooperation with the investigation. Even those who were wounded do not believe that they should somehow cooperate. He stood nearby - he fell, I don’t know anymore, I didn’t see what form was in - I don’t remember where they shot - I didn’t look. And this says a lot. We spoke with dozens of security forces, and these were very difficult conversations. We were sure that those who buried their comrades, they would definitely want to talk about it. But no. They mainly referred to the fact that society was not ready to hear about the victims among the police, but someday they would tell about it.

We would really like the police to tell. It is difficult for us to believe that they themselves decided - whether to shoot, from what exactly, to attack Avtomaydan, etc.

- For the fourth year I have been trying to understand who gave the order to disperse the rally on Bolotnaya.

• It sounds a little naive, but when to do this, if not in the conditions of the victorious revolution? It is clear that "Golden Eagle" is only a tool, but I would not underestimate their personal responsibility. Each of them could just put documents ...

- I also often hear in Russia reasoning in the spirit "How can a judge endure an independent verdict?!" But he can simply remove the mantle, just like a policeman - put a club on the ground and leave.

• Yes, the problem of non -fulfillment of criminal orders ... And here it is necessary to figure out what kind of law enforcement system, working as a closed caste, with which it is scary and dangerous to live nearby.

- And what is the fate of the police? How many of them turned out to be "on the other side"?

• Many are wanted, but we do not know where they are. Most of the Lugansk, Sevastopol, Donetsk "Berkut" - they stayed there, in the field. But there is information that some others went there. Of the 25 people involved in shooting at Institutskaya, only five were found today. The commander ran away, and there are no others either.

- Representatives of the Russian press addressed you for an interview?

• (Laughs) except for you - so far no one.

- Are you ready to call you with Russia Today?

• Ready, but I do not think that I will communicate with them. But in Russia there are other media - “rain”, “freedom”, “new newspaper”. We trust these people, work together, share information. What do you think about the film?

- Firstly, you are very brave. Our fatal point is May 6, 2012. Since then, we constantly have to defend the right to tell the truth. Why, they say, mention people who threw stones at the police? In Russia, we hide our "activists of action", hide their actions or call them provocateurs. And you show your bell and say - "And we have nothing to be shy."

• In fact, I am offended that the bell blocked the other hero of the film - Sergey Trapezun, a teacher from the Khmelnitsky region. This is a very bright man, he told the whole story of his injury - and he survived completely a miracle - without any shadow of heroic pathos, you believe him absolutely. He told (this was not included in the film) that when they went out, someone told him: take off the camouflage jacket - they shoot at the camouflage. And he also took a backpack, filled some old shoes there-if, he thinks, they will beat, it will somehow protect it. I say that I am wounded and I think: here my wife asked the children to grow, but who now? And my apiary - who will take care of her?

For me, Sergey’s figure is the strongest, she collects everything around her, she is about the value of human life, and the rest is only circumstances.

- These are two approaches to life. Maybe now the one who acts by force is more attracted? People today can negatively perceive the bell, but inside this question - how I will protect my life, if they attack me - does not give them rest. Perhaps there will be a time when the second figure comes forward. I think your film will turn over time with different sides over time. And you also made a very beautiful movie. It gives the physical sensation of that day, very important for someone who was not there. Well, the first frame is just a masterpiece!

• Yes, this is our frame! The guys mostly "stubbled" then. There was simply no time for artistic delights and installation - the main thing was that the world saw everything live. On the first anniversary, they began to sort out the material and accidentally found this frame shot on the 18th on the silk. We fought for a visual decision. There are many shootings from the Maidan, and it is difficult to choose.

It is also interesting that the sound growing at the beginning is a “boom -boom” - these are our guys from the culture department even earlier collected the composition of the Bit Maidan from all sounds of those days. We decided that we would not have any music, only this soundtrack.