The Heartbreaking Irony of ‘Winter on Fire’
《凛冬烈火：乌克兰自由之战》没告诉你的事
原文：The Nation https://tinyurl.com/y2vcsfpk
作者：Lev Golinkin
译文：苦劳网 https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/93390
译者：临时老翻组
The Oscar-nominated Netflix documentary Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for
Freedom presents viewers with a story of everyday citizens facing down brutal
riot police controlled by Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych, backed
by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The colorful array of activists,
artists, scarf-wrapped babushki, bearded priests and fresh-faced students
makes it appear as if Ukraine’s people from all walks of life in
participated in the Maidan uprising. But some are missing—neo-Nazis, who
were edited out.
获奥斯卡提名的Netflix（网飞）纪录片《凛冬烈火：乌克兰为自由而战》（Winter on
Fire）向观众呈现乌克兰市民每天面对凶残防暴警察的故事，而这些警察均由俄罗斯总统
普京暗中支持的时任乌克兰总统亚努科维奇（Viktor Yanukovych）所操控。影片中，由
社会行动者、艺术家、戴着大领巾的阿婆、东正教神父和年青学生所组成色彩缤纷的示威
人群，仿佛在显示乌克兰所有人都在广场革命中站出来了。但唯独有些人失去了踪影——
新纳粹主义者被导演刻意删去了。
“A CRUCIAL ROLE”
白人至上主义者在事件中担重要角色
Ukraine had an established far-right movement long before the Maidan
upheavals of late 2013–early 2014. In 2010, Ukraine’s then-President Viktor
Yushchenko drew widespread condemnation abroad by honoring Stepan Bandera, a
Nazi collaborator and leader of an underground army responsible for
slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Jews and Poles during World War II.
Pre-Maidan Ukraine was home to the Social-National Assembly, a
white-supremacist organization headed by Andriy Biletsky, who’s written that
his group’s mission is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final
crusade for their survival.” It also had the Svoboda party, led by Oleh
Tyahnybok, a parliamentary deputy whose 2004 request for an investigation of
the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia” controlling Kiev caused international
headlines. In 2012, a fellow Svoboda politician called Ukrainian-born actress
Mila Kunis a “dirty Jewess.” All that these groups needed was an
opportunity to come out of the shadows; Maidan gave them that chance.
早在2010年，乌克兰远在此次运动前已发生极右翼的运动。2010年，乌克兰时任总统亚努
科维奇因高度赞扬一名民族主义者班杰拉（Stepan Bandera）而引来国际社会反弹，因为
班杰拉在二战中曾为地下军首领，并需为屠杀千千万万犹太人和波兰人的事件负责。广场
革命前，乌克兰是政党“社会国民大会”（Social-National Assembly）大本营。这是个
白人至上主义的组织，其头目名叫比莱茨基（Andriy Biletsky）。这位比莱茨基曾指出
这个组织的目标是要“为了白人种族的生存，要带领白人种族在世上进行最后的圣战”。
除此以外还有一名国会议员加尼伯克（Oleh Tyahnybok）所带领的全乌克兰联盟“自由”
（Svoboda）。这个政党在2004年声称要调查“莫斯科犹太人联合黑手党”（译按：“黑
手党”仅为比喻），因这黑手党已控制了基辅云云——比莱茨基的口不择言，登上不少国
际新闻的头条。2012年，一名该党政客更称呼乌克兰土生土长的女演员蜜拉·库妮丝（
Mila Kunis）为“肮脏的犹太人”来侮辱她。所有这些极右翼组织，都需要一个机会可以
光明正大地做他们要做的事，而片中的广场革命，就给了他们这个机会。
Initially, the disparate neo-Nazi factions remained on Maidan’s periphery.
But as the protests grew violent in late 2013—which led to Yanukovych’s
overthrow, civil war, Crimea, etc.—the far right “played a crucial role,
providing muscle to protesters who were largely unequipped to do their own
fighting,” as The New Yorker described it. Indeed, the instrumental role of
far-right groups was acknowledged by journalists and analysts in publications
as diverse as The Guardian, the BBC, Reuters, and The National Interest. Even
Hannah Thoburn—a commentator who’s authored numerous articles in support of
Maidan—has noted that Winter on Fire failed to mention “that far-right
nationalist groups were very involved in the fighting.”
开始的时候，这些来自不同派系的极右翼份子在广场革命的人群中仍不是核心人物。可是
，当2013年，行动转趋暴力和激烈化，以致推翻了亲俄总统，带来内战和克里米亚再次独
立等等，情况就不同了。《纽约客》杂志形容这些右翼份子“扮演了相当重要的角色，为
当时仍未准备好要激烈斗争的示威者提供了不少力量。”这个重要的角色，在不同立场的
媒体中都有相近的阐述，包括《卫报》、英国广播电台（BBC）、路透社和《国家利益》
杂志（The National Interest）。就连索本（Hannah Thoburn）这位相当支持广场革命
的评论人，都指出《凛冬烈火》这出纪录片未能恰当描述极右翼组织在这场斗争中的积极
参与。
The darkest evidence of the far right’s involvement comes from Ivan
Katchanovski, a professor at the University of Ottawa, who researched the
events of February 20, 2014, “Maidan snipers massacre” when mysterious
gunmen killed over 50 people. In addition to being the crucial turning point
that led to Yanukovych’s abdication, the massacre is the climax of Winter on
Fire. Katchanovski argues, with considerable forensic and other evidence,
that far-right groups not only provoked fighting by shooting at the police
but also carried out the murder of Maidan protesters in a false-flag
operation. The Kiev government has been unable to provide a definitive
explanation to what happened that day.
对极右翼在此次革命中做过的事，最严重的指控来自一名加拿大渥太华大学的教授凯查诺
维斯基（Ivan Katchanovski）。他仔细研究了2014年2月20日有神秘枪手射杀超过50名平
民的事件。这事件除了是令时任亲俄总统下台的重要转捩点，也是《凛冬烈火》这出影片
的高潮所在。凯查诺维斯基透过法庭的文献和其他证据，指认极右翼组织不单在抗争前线
向警察开枪去挑引冲突，更需为射杀50名示威者并嫁祸于人的事件负责。而基辅政府却仍
未能调查当日事件的实际情况。
The far right’s absence from Winter on Fire becomes even more glaring when
compared with other documentaries about Ukraine. Maidan: Tonight Tomorrow,
which received a positive review in The New Yorker, managed to include the
far right, despite being less than nine minutes long, while Masks of the
Revolution, a French film, focused solely on the role of ultranationalists
during and after Maidan. (Ironically, the Ukrainian government attempted to
prevent France from airing the latter film because they claimed it “creates
misconception.”)
极右翼份子在《凛冬烈火》这出纪录片中的完全缺席。与其他相同主题的纪录片比较时，
这点更加明显而引人注目。在《纽约客》杂志中获好评的《Maidan: Tonight Tomorrow》
便把极右翼包含在影片内，虽然只有九分钟。而法国电影《Masks of the Revolution》
则主要集中于描述这些极右份子在广场革命后的角色。（讽刺地，革命后的乌克兰政府却
企图制造言禁，指这电影制造错误观念，并企图令《Masks of the Revolution》无法在
法国电视台公映。)
Without the neo-Nazi groups, Maidan would not have succeeded in overthrowing
Ukraine’s elected president—the titular “winter on fire” would have
sputtered out. And yet the film makes no mention of them. (A frame-by-frame
scrutiny revealed some background flashes of flags and insignia, an
interviewee wearing a scarf with Bandera’s image, and two scenes with
Tyahnybok milling about in the background, but none of this would hold any
meaning for an American viewer.) The fact that Evgeny Afineevsky, the film’s
director, chose to ignore the very factor that made his film possible is
astonishing.
若无这些新纳粹份子推动，乌克兰当时的民选总统便不会那么容易被推翻，而《凛冬烈火
》这样子的片名更不可能会出现。然而，纪录片的导演却选择了绝口不提。（虽然，影片
背景曾出现过他们的旗帜，一名受访者也戴着印有二战时参与大屠杀的班杰拉领巾，共有
两个镜头见到极右政党的头领加尼伯克在背景中走来走去，但这些对一位根本不认识它们
的美国观众几近毫无意义）（译按：应该是熟悉乌克兰政治以外的人都难以连上任何关系
）。导演为何尝试排除使他的影片拍得成的主因，实在令人费解。
“JELLY SIDE UP”
美国驻乌克兰大使：“非常乐观”
Another gross distortion in Winter on Fire is its presentation of Maidan as
an independent phenomenon free of Western interference. While the film makes
much of the ties between the Yanukovych government and Moscow, it portrays
the protest movement as spontaneous, grassroots, and, above all, beholden to
no foreign interests. Visiting American politicians appear in a single
ten-second scene when they, according to the intertitle, “meet with
Yanukovych in order to find a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.”
《凛冬烈火》另一个严重失真是将广场革命描述为一个没有西方干涉的独立现象。影片强
烈指涉后来被推翻的总统亚努科维奇与俄罗斯关系密切，同时把抗议者描述成纯粹自发、
来自草根，而不存在任何外国利益。来访的美国政客在片中只出现了十秒，但影幕上写的
文字却是这些美国人“与总统亚努科维奇会面以找寻解决当前危机的外交方法。”
Evidence, however, demonstrates that America’s role during the winter
turmoil of 2013–14 was more quarterback than arbiter. The most telling
example of this comes via an intercepted phone call between US Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Washington’s ambassador to Ukraine,
Geoffrey Pyatt. During the call, Nuland and Pyatt sound like two senior
managers hashing out corporate restructuring, with Nuland instructing Pyatt
on which Ukrainian leader should be appointed prime minister, how to sideline
the UN and the EU in negotiations, and the best strategy for making Ukraine
land “jelly side up,” as an enthusiastic Pyatt described it.
然而不同的证据显示美国在2013至14年这个冬天的动荡中的角色，显然不只是个仲裁者。
最明显的例子就是一通被截听的电话通话。这通电话是美国助理国务卿纽兰（Victoria
Nuland）与美国驻乌克兰大使派亚特（Geoffrey Pyatt）之间的对话。这个对话内容中，
显示二人好像似两个企业高层在讨论如何做企业重组一般，助理国务卿纽兰指示驻乌大使
哪个乌克兰政治领袖要成为日后的总理，日后这些人要如何在谈判桌上把联合国和欧盟边
缘化，还有如何令乌克兰危机安全着陆。驻乌大使派亚特更热烈地表示“非常乐观”。
The call, which was leaked on February 4, 2014, was not the first time Nuland
and Pyatt were deeply involved in Maidan. On December 11, 2013, the pair made
a highly publicized tour of the barricades handing out cookies to protesters.
Three days later, Senator John McCain flew in to speak to the crowds; McCain
and Senator Chris Murphy shared the stage with Svoboda leader Tyahnybok. Both
visits were filmed by Ukrainian and Western press, yet are absent from the
documentary. Understandably, the involvement of senior US government
officials working to land Ukraine “jelly side up” interfered with the “
everyday people, teachers, doctors, street cleaners” narrative of Winter on
Fire.
这通电话的内容于2014年2月4日流出。然而这并非这两位人士第一次深入干预这次广场革
命。2013年12月11日，美国的助理国务卿和驻乌克兰大使高调地前往抗争现场视察，还派
曲奇饼给示威者。三天后，美国参议员马侃（John McCain）特地飞到基辅向群众演讲。
参议员马侃和墨菲（Chris Murphy）更与极右政党领袖加尼伯克同台。这些都是乌克兰和
西方大众媒体都拍到的事实，但纪录片绝口不提。明显地，美国政治高层在事件中的参与
，事实上影响着《凛冬烈火》中乌克兰民众的命运。
“A FILMMAKER, NOT A JOURNALIST”
“我是一个导演，不是一个记者”
What is so striking about Winter on Fire is not how it whitewashes the story
of Maidan but the fact that Afineevsky, the director, brazenly admits it. An
interview with US-funded Radio Free Europe brought up the claim that the film
“glossed over” Right Sector, a neo-Nazi organization that played a
prominent role in Maidan and was later accused of torture, among other
crimes, by Amnesty International. “You know what? Right Sector, they
actually fought for everything like everybody else. They were a part of these
people,” scoffed Afineevsky. What Afineevsky meant by this answer is
unclear, much like the statement that he is “a filmmaker not a journalist,”
which Radio Free Europe said he gave in response to charges that he
oversimplified the narrative.
其实，这出影片令人惊讶之处，并不在于它如何漂白了广场革命的故事，而是导演艾菲尼
夫斯基（Evgeny Afineevsky）对于这个行为的直言不讳。在一个美资电台“自由欧洲”
(Radio Free Europe) 的访问中，记者提及影片掩饰了一个新纳粹组织“右区”（
Right Sector）的暴行。这些暴行后期被国际特赦组织揭发，指右区对异见者施虐。对此
导演嗤笑道：“你知吗？右区与其他抗争者都有参与抗争，是抗争的一部份。”导演的意
思有点暧昧，就像他另一个含糊回应：“我是一个导演，不是一个记者”。自由欧洲电台
指导演这样说时，是在回应有人指他的影片对事件过度简化。
Afineevsky repeated the same line in an interview with Mashable, when asked
about his decision to ignore the anti-Maidan protests that arose in response
in the Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine and were viciously
suppressed by far-right gangs in the spring of 2014. According to the
Mashable article, which noted Winter on Fire’s “failure to address many of
the complexities of the revolution,” “the decision to exclude alternative
viewpoints was a conscious one.”
导演在接受另一媒体“马沙布尔”（Mashable）访问时，亦重复了这个说法。这次他被问
及为何影片选择抹走了在乌克兰东部俄语区的反对广场革命的示威，而这些示威在2014年
春天（译按：革命后前反对派当权后）被极右翼党徒非常恶毒地镇压。马沙布尔的文章指
出：“《凛冬烈火》并未提及甚至是刻意排除那场革命众多复杂的问题。”
The “alternative viewpoints” excluded by Afineevsky are, of course, the
opinions of the roughly 22 million Ukrainians who were against the Maidan
uprising, as reported by Kyiv Post (a pro-Maidan publication) in December
2013. To put this decision into perspective, imagine a foreign filmmaker
creating a glowing documentary about the NRA called America’s Fight for
Freedom while ignoring the alternative viewpoints of millions of Americans
who strongly oppose the NRA.
这些被删去的“另类观点”当然是来自全国2,200万反对广场革命的声音。这个数字，乃
是由支持广场革命的《基辅日报》在2013年12月所报导。如果美国观众想更贴近地想像这
个事情，就试想像一个外国导演想拍摄一出歌颂美国步枪协会（National Rifle
Association of America ，NRA）的纪录片，而将之命名为《美国自由之战》，而同时选
择完全不提及另外几千百万反对该协会的人的声音，就可以明白了。
POINT OF VIEW VERSUS PROPAGANDA
“观点角度” 与“政治宣传” 的对垒
Documentaries are no strangers to controversy over accurate presentation of
complex subjects. (The current debate over Making a Murderer, another Netflix
original, is a case in point.) Although there are no clear ethical
guidelines, the question centers on how strongly a filmmaker can put forth a
certain point of view before omission of facts crosses the line into
propaganda.
关于如何准确呈现复杂事件的争议，在纪录片来说可谓毫不陌生（现时对另一出Netflix
原创纪录片《谋杀犯的形成》（Making a Murderer）的争辩又是一例)。虽然难有清晰的
伦理准则，但问题的核心在于：制片人在敍事中刻意删去某些事实以表达观点时，删到什
么程度会变成“过界”而变成纯粹政治宣传？
Winter on Fire omits key facts, which results in an audience whose
understanding of Ukraine’s history, politics, regions, sociological makeup,
and languages is extremely limited (or nonexistent) receiving a one-sided
view of developments in Ukraine. Afineevsky—whose film is advertised for a
general viewership and is getting broad distribution thanks to Netflix and
its Oscar-nomination hype—presents a highly slanted version of unfamiliar
events in a foreign nation, events that led to a still ongoing civil war and
the worst US-Russian confrontation in decades, as “Ukraine’s fight for
freedom.” In the process, the director cynically ignores the half of Ukraine
—22 million people!—who vehemently opposed Maidan; and the fact that
critical fighting was done not by freedom lovers but by white supremacists
and other neo-Nazis.
《凛冬烈火》忽略许多基本事实，导致对乌克兰历史、政治、宗教、社会构成甚至语言理
解欠佳（甚至缺乏认识）的观众，只能从中接收对乌克兰发展观的单一观点。这出纪录片
已经广泛地传播至不同的观众，在Netflix和奥斯卡获奖的推波助澜下，导演艾菲尼夫斯
基扭曲地呈现那些发生在某个异地的不为人熟悉的事件，并将这个导致长期内战、甚至是
数十年来美俄对峙局势最高张的事件，仅仅描述成“乌克兰自由之战”。在这个歪曲的过
程中，导演干脆把一半乌克兰人口（接近2,200万人）强烈反对广场革命这个基本事实完
全抹去不提。另一个刻意删去的事件，就是打斗最激烈的主事者根本不是热爱自由的民众
，而是白人至上主义者与新纳粹支持者。
Perhaps if Afineevsky, who chose to exclude alternative viewpoints after
watching police crack down on protesters in Kiev, had traveled to eastern
Ukraine, Winter on Fire would have turned out differently. Had he walked
around the wasteland of Donbass assailed with heavy weapons late in 2014, met
with survivors of torture at the hands of far-right battalions, spoken to
widows of those slaughtered by indiscriminate shelling by all sides of the
conflict, and gazed upon the over 2 million eastern Ukrainians forced to
become refugees, he might not have deleted their existence. Unfortunately, it
appears that by that point Afineevsky had long decided who were the heroes of
his tale.
如果导演不只是在基辅看到防暴警镇压人民后，就因而刻意排除了某些另类意见，而是走
到乌克兰东部实地观看看，或许《凛冬烈火》对整起事件就会有不同的呈现。如果他曾走
过顿巴斯（Donbass）这个在2014年下旬被重型武器轰打成废墟的地方，与曾遭受极右极
端分子折磨的幸存者相遇，并和不同派系发动无差别炮击被杀者的遗孀交谈，并注视一下
超过二百万东乌克兰人因此沦为流亡难民，他或许就不会抹煞这些反对广场革命的人士的
存在。很不幸，艾菲尼夫斯基斯乎早已决定，哪些人才够资格为他建构的神话中的英雄人
物。
AFTER WINTER ON FIRE
凛冬烈火之后
Omitting inconveniences such as armed ultranationalists, American
politicians, and the opinions of 22 million Ukrainians required meticulous,
perhaps even Oscar-worthy editing; erasing these factors from real life has
proven to be much more problematic. In fact, in the two years after Maidan
forces took control of Kiev, the impact of both the far right and the
American government on Ukrainian society has only grown deeper.
武装极端种族主义者、美国政治人物、二千多万乌克兰人的反对意见——这些都是令上述
自由之战的神话讲不通的尴尬因素，要刻意将之移除需要仔细甚至是奥斯卡级数的剪接。
但移除了这些现实发生的事情最终带来了更多问题。实际上，在来自广场的力量夺取基辅
控制权后的两年，极右翼政客同美国政府对乌克兰社会的影响力已经变得更为深远。
Clashes with riot police gave white-supremacist organizations an opportunity
to seize a central role in the Maidan uprising; the ensuing war with eastern
Ukrainian rebels enabled the far right to expand from gangs into organized
battalions, marching under the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol and the
black-and-red banner of Bandera.
与防暴警察的对抗给予白人至上组织一个机会，夺取广场革命的中心角色。和乌克兰东部
叛军的漫长战争，让极右力量从不同的小帮派扩张成为组织严密的军事化团体。在新纳粹
的猎狼符号和班杰拉的黑红旗之下继续发展。
For nearly a year, this disturbing development was barely covered by Western
media, which, much like Winter on Fire, largely avoided the dark side of
Maidan. Stories of the neo-Nazi battalions slowly seeped into the West due in
part to the tenacious journalism of investigative reporter Robert Parry as
well as the attention of US Congressmen John Conyers and Ted Yoho, who
sponsored an amendment banning US funds from going to the infamous Azov
battalion, which was formed from one of Biletsky’s organizations and has
been labeled as “openly neo-Nazi” by The New York Times and received
coverage in USA Today.
近一年来，这些令人忧虑的发展甚少出现在西方媒体的报导之中，后者也如《凛冬烈火》
一样回避了广场革命的黑暗面。新纳粹兵团的故事得以渐渐流传到西方，源于一位记者帕
里（Robert Parry）锲而不舍的调查报导，还有美国国会议员柯尼尔斯（John Conyers）
和约霍（Ted Yoho）提案要求禁止美国资助恶名昭彰的亚速（Azov）兵团。这兵团是由比
莱茨基建立的组织，并被《纽约时报》称为“公然的新纳粹”，“今天美国”（USA
Today）对此也有所报导。
In addition to brutally crushing dissent in southeastern Ukraine, the
far-right paramilitaries racked up a horrifying record of human-rights
violations. Several far-right battalions have been accused of torture,
kidnapping, murder, and war crimes by Amnesty International. At times, the
paramilitaries have turned on the government, clashing with police and
guardsmen with deadly consequences; as commentators pointed out, Kiev’s
control over these armed ultranationalists is tenuous at best.
除了现时在乌克兰东南部发生的粗暴镇压异见外，极右的非正规军事人员还犯下骇人听闻
的侵犯人权事件。国际特赦组织曾指出，数个极右份子的军团曾犯下酷刑、绑架、谋杀和
战争罪行。有时候，这些军团也会将矛头转向政府，与警察和警卫发生冲突，甚至造成伤
亡。正如评论家所指，基辅政府对这些武装极端民族主义者的控制，根本近乎放纵。
On the political front, Nuland’s and Pyatt’s machinations left Ukraine
under considerable US influence. According to respected Ukrainian
investigative reporter Sergei Leschenko, as quoted by Bloomberg columnist
Leonid Bershidsky, “Pyatt and the U.S. administration have more influence
than ever in the history of independent Ukraine.” Last August, Pyatt and
Nuland watched over the Ukrainian parliament grudgingly vote in favor of an
unpopular amendment, the passage of which required considerable American arm
twisting. Vice President Joe Biden has stated that he talks with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko more often than he does with his wife, in an
awkward mix of joke and admission of Washington’s involvement in Kiev.
在政治战线上，美国助理国务卿纽兰和驻乌克兰大使派亚特的操作让美国对乌克兰造成相
当大的影响。根据自彭博专栏作家柏席茨基（Leonid Bershidsky）引用具声誉的乌克兰
调查记者列什先科（Sergei Leschenko）所言：“派亚特和美国政府现时的影响力，是自
乌克兰独立以来史无前例地巨大。”2015年8月，派亚特和纽兰留意到乌克兰议会需通过
投票，支持一份不太受欢迎的修正案，而成事其实需要美国相当大的介入。当时，美国副
总统拜登表示，他与乌克兰总统波洛申科（Petro Poroshenko）的谈话次数还多于与他的
妻子，这是个令人尴尬的笑话，同时也承认华盛顿介入基辅的事务。
Toward the end of Winter on Fire, a young activist says: “For 23 years, we
only had our independence on paper, but now…it has become real.” As of late
2015, the US-backed Kiev government has an approval rating below that of
former President Yanukovych before his overthrow, as increasing omens of
growing public disillusionment with the Maidan government and the danger of a
far-right coup grow. It appears that, much as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Libya, the seeds of US democracy have not found fertile ground in Kiev.
在《凛冬烈火》结束时，一位年轻的行动者说：“23年来，我们只在文件上获得独立，但
现在……它已成为现实。” 截至2015年底，随着越来越多的公众对广场革命政府的幻想
破灭，并担忧极右翼军事政变的危机，由美国在背后支持的基辅政府获得比被前总统亚努
科维奇被推翻前更低的支持率，不过同时，也有越来越多的公众对广场革命政府的幻灭，
并担忧极右翼军事政变的危机。看来，就像在伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亚，美式民主的种子
在基辅，同样没有找到肥沃的土地。
And that is the heartbreaking irony of Winter on Fire. The documentary, like
much Western coverage of Ukraine, chooses to present the West with a
mythical, whitewashed version of the Maidan “revolution” as a movement
composed solely of democratic, freedom loving people. Now the elements
ignored by this myth are threatening the possibility of a free democratic
Ukraine.
这便是《凛冬烈火》最为讽刺及令人心碎的现实。该纪录片像许多西方对乌克兰的传媒报
导一样，向西方读者推销一个被神化、洗白的版本， 将广场革命粉饰成一场完全只是由
热爱自由民主的人参与的运动。可是这个神话背后所忽视的元素，却正在威胁乌克兰得到
真正自由民主的机会。