A Slavic refugee recalls how her young son and the wife of a militia were executed in her presence. About a boy crucified on a board What a crucified boy

A year ago, Channel One aired a story about a crucified boy: the Ukrainian military who allegedly occupied Slavyansk executed a child on the square in front of his mother and city residents. One of the Donbass refugees told about the "atrocities" of Ukrainian soldiers. Almost immediately, the media found out that the plot was fiction. Nevertheless, the author of the fake, Rostov journalist Yulia Chumakova, continues to run the South Russian Bureau of Channel One and, apparently, feels well.

In July 2014, Galina Pyshnyak, a 39-year-old resident of Slavyansk, received her moment of fame.

The plot of Channel One (rebroadcasting on air and cable networks has not yet been banned) was shown on Ukrainian television news as an example of monstrous propaganda lies. "The Crucified Boy" immediately became an Internet meme, and the blonde with the haggard face that brought this fake to light became recognizable. Her identity was quickly established, as reported by Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian Interior Minister.

The page of Galina Pyshnyak, registered in social networks under the maiden name Astapenko, was viewed by thousands of people every day. The neighbors on the floor in a small-family hostel on Vyshgorodskaya Street in Kiev, where Pyshnyak is most likely still registered, gave interviews to the police and the press: “We haven't seen it for a long time. I gave it to tenants. " But in the winter of 2014, Pyshnyak apparently left Rostov and flickered at home, not forgetting to photograph her own four babies in the recognizable interior of the living room. This family had a serious passion for photographic evidence posted on the Internet.

Galina's husband, Konstantin, a native of Nikolaevka, near Slavyansk, worked in the local police. After the arrival of the gang, Girkin found himself in the ranks of the armed separatists as a person close to Motorola itself. Their joint photo became a confirmation of their career success. The wife preferred to be photographed either with a machine gun at the next DPR checkpoint, or with a pistol on a deserted street in the occupied city ...

Journalists of the capital's newspapers traveled to the small homeland of Astapenko-Pyshnyak, in Transcarpathia, to the village of Soimy, Mezhyhirsky district. The three grown brothers and mother did not know what to say. The elder brother recalled: several years ago he invited Galina and her family to settle in a new spacious house, which he, the owner, had built. I called and invited: "There will be enough space for everyone, how long are you crowded!" - and heard in response: "Damned Bandera, poison you, strangle you and lift you on a pitchfork!"

Judging by subsequent events, Galina Pyshnyak spent very little time in the Rostov refugee camp. The camera of the Russia-24 channel met her in Donetsk on January 22, 2015. On that rainy day in the Leninsky district, right at the Gormash stop, a trolleybus was fired upon. Civilians were killed. The projectile flew in from the side where the hostilities were not fought, the anti-terrorist operation forces were at a 15-kilometer distance from this place. But eyewitnesses to "the next crime of the junta" were able to immediately pronounce a verdict. The main prosecutor was the shop assistant Galina Pyshnyak.

The city newspaper of Slavyansk "Vesti" ceased to be published on May 1, 2014 - the building of the editorial office was damaged by shell explosions, windows and doors flew out. Alexander Kulbaka, editor-in-chief of the newspaper, then went to the territory controlled by Ukraine, to Slavyanogorsk. His employees did the same. A year later, Alexander, who restored the publication, told me an illustrative story:

- At the entrance to our market there is a man who sells books. Books, not seeds, mind you! And he reads these books, the newspapers are fresh, because the Press kiosk is nearby. And so I recently walked by and heard this guy say to someone: “Well, you remember when the Ukrainians crucified the boy ...” It all depends on how the person is set up. No matter how many arguments you bring against the pro-Russian, the TV set is always right. And he either blindly believes and convinces the others, or he feels the need, the willingness to believe. A pro-Ukrainian one doubts any information. Searches for other sources, compares.

Although, according to a colleague, there is also enough bad local news for pro-Ukrainian citizens. For example: the Slavtyazhmash enterprise, which employed four thousand people in Soviet times, is going to be cut into metal. This news made an impression much stronger than the fake from Pyshnyak.

Olga MUSAFIROVA,
sob. corr. "New",
Kiev

Rusty nails

Neither the management of Channel One, nor the author of the dastardly story about the "crucified" child, and a year later did not apologize to the residents of Slavyansk and their own viewers.

On July 7, 2014, after Sloviansk left the units of Strelkov-Girkin (who was at that time the Minister of Defense of the self-proclaimed “DPR”), the Armed Forces of Ukraine completely occupied the city. And on July 12, 2014, the First Channel of Russian television aired a story in which a certain Galina Pyshnyak, who introduced herself as a refugee from Slavyansk, told how the military drove women to the central square of the city and in front of them crucified a little boy on a bulletin board. The child's mother was forced to watch the execution. He died for an hour and a half. And when he died, they tied my mother to a tank and dragged her through the streets of the city until she also died.

The woman's story was recorded on video by a Rostov journalist, head of the South Russian Bureau of the First Yulia Chumakova. Immediately after the TV news broadcast, Novaya Gazeta tried to find out: when did this "execution" take place in Slavyansk? The residents who remained in the city said that they had not heard of anything like this. Also, some inconsistencies were clarified. For example, the woman in the frame says that the residents were herded to the central Lenin Square. But there is no such area in Slavyansk.

Yulia Chumakova herself could answer the questions that arose - how did the journalist find out about the "refugee", why she did not check her story, whether she made up this story on her own initiative or fulfilled the editorial task of Moscow. But she categorically refused to communicate: "For all questions, please contact the press service of Channel One."

On December 18, 2014, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin held a regular conversation with the press. Ksenia Sobchak asked about incitement to hatred on Russian television and cited a story about a crucified boy as an example. However, the president, like Yulia Chumakova, did not answer it.

And on December 21, 2014, the host of the Vremya program Irada Zeynalova said that the crucifixion story is “a real story of a real woman,” who introduced herself as Galina, whose psyche “could not stand the hell of round-the-clock shelling”.

I recently contacted Yulia Chumakova by phone, and she said that she was still in charge of the South Russian Bureau of Channel One, and when asked to comment on her work a year ago, she answered:

- We already talked about this. Everything is the same - contact the press service of Channel One.

Chumakova's Rostov colleagues reacted to her story differently.

The correspondent of the newspaper "Krestya-nin" Timur Sazonov discussed it with the students of the Faculty of Journalism of the SFedU, where he teaches:

- We had a seminar on journalistic ethics, and as an example of a flagrant violation of this ethics, I cited a story about a crucified boy.

The head of the Rostov Internet resource Doninformburo Elena Romanova does not justify Yulia Chumakova, but suggests looking at the incident more broadly, so to speak, in the context of the systemic crisis of the domestic media:

- Many talented journalists were taken by surprise by this war. After all, no one told them at the beginning of their careers that the time would come when they would have to openly lie from the TV screen. It seems to me that Julia became a victim of her own indiscretion. She recorded an interview with an inadequate person, they forced her to transfer the material to Moscow, and the metropolitan editors blinded it into a fake. The fact that they ruined their reputation as a good journalist does not bother them very much. Why does this not bother Julia, why did she not come forward with an open denial, for example, in social networks? Do you know the size of their salaries? I think these dimensions are capable of relieving the pangs of conscience of many journalists.

Victoria MAKARENKO,
sob. corr. "New",
Rostov-on-Don

This is a rhetorical question, but there is an answer to it. Shame can be worse than a murdered boy, especially if the boy is fictional, but the shame is real. On Saturday's Vremya program, this was frankly striking - the apologetic tone of the presenter Vitaly Eliseev (“The conversation with Galina left a difficult feeling ... My heart does not believe that such a thing is possible at all….”), The demonstratively incurious correspondent Yulia Chumakova (five out of five of her remarks in the plot - a variation on the theme "are you afraid to tell such things", nothing else interests Yulia Chumakova). How so? People have a big sensation in their hands, and they act as if they are talking about rally "Gays for Yavlinsky": "We ourselves are embarrassed, but you understand us."

There is no Lenin Square in Slavyansk, the refugee Galina Pyshnyak came not from Slavyansk, but from Donetsk, and besides Galina herself, there are no witnesses of the alleged public execution - it was not difficult to find out all this at all. It was not difficult to find the original source: on July 9, the philosopher Alexander Dugin in Facebook, referring to an anonymous eyewitness, wrote about a six-year-old boy crucified in Slavyansk on a bulletin board. It is not difficult to reconstruct further; Dugin has many admirers, including in the Kremlin, and, probably, at the next meeting on "information planning" some big boss, who had read that post the day before, said that, they say, can you imagine what the punishers have reached - a child! On the bulletin board! And why is our television silent? The television sighed and went to look for at least someone who would agree to repeat the urban legend in front of the camera. Galina Pyshnyak was found, we saw the rest.

When the head of the Russian state media Margarita Simonyan writes: “And all the same, Lord, do so that there is no war”, she hardly means: “Lord, do so that there was no me”, but it would be foolish to deny the role of Russian television in inciting military sentiments and expectations ... The military standards of fact-checking on state television differ markedly from the peaceful ones. When VGTRK reporter Igor Kornelyuk died in Donbass, his TV company (obviously trying to avoid a scandal) even retroactively changed the title of his latest report. It was: “In the village of Schastye, punishers massacred almost the entire local population”; became: "The battle in the village of Happiness: Shells hit anywhere." As in the case of the crucified boy, the author of the report referred to an eyewitness who was told about the cleansing by another eyewitness - that is, there is generally no evidence, but after all, the war. The military texts of Ilya Ehrenburg can also be approached with the yardstick of journalistic objectivity, and then from four volumes will remain, maybe half a page about pre-war France, the rest will have to be rejected, because the author did not bother with proofs. I am making this argument because it will most likely come up in discussions of the first-channel story and someone will probably ask, what, they say, should Ehrenburg take care of fact-checking? Probably it shouldn't, but the problem is that all the military traditions of Russian television were formed long before the start of the Ukrainian crisis, that is, the war has nothing to do with it. Living and, in general, normal people work on state channels. They know that lying is not good, but they also know (judging by their acquaintances, who, by the way, are sure that their colleagues all over the world, from CNN to Al Jazeera, behave in the same way) that you can lie in those cases when it comes to enemies, the protection of state interests and other matters of the same order.

In vain are the critics of Russian television looking for the origins of the current peculiarities of Russian propaganda in the Soviet and even more so Hitler (even despite Putin's famous statement about Goebbels) times - our propaganda is much younger, and its direct ancestors are not Goebbels or Ehrenburg, but post-Soviet media people of the nineties, who They have always worked part-time with jeans, and at the call of the Kremlin, soldiers of information wars have always joined the ranks. The route that led them to the current state of affairs was as follows: from October 1993 through Operation "Snout in the Snow" and the first Chechen war; through the Yeltsin-Zyuganov elections in 1996 and the war for Svyazinvest in 1996; through the programs of Dorenko and "Gays for Yavlinsky" to "Anatomies of Protest", "News of the Week" and, while this is the highest point of development, to the current propaganda masterpieces on the Ukrainian theme.

We are accustomed to the fact that TV is engaged in propaganda, we have a rough idea of ​​what to expect from it, but when this story with the crucified boy appeared, it somehow immediately became clear that this was beyond the bounds. Such things cannot be prescribed in any law on insulting the senses, but at the same time people really have feelings, and the blood libel on the air of the main national channel is really offensive even for those who are already accustomed to the prevailing image of Russian television.

In addition, the story about the crucified boy also violates the usual distribution of roles between Russian TV channels - traditionally there is such a situation that VGTRK and especially NTV are responsible for the most hellish propaganda, and the reputation of Channel One is made up of less controversial things: the opening of the Olympics, the series The Thaw, the Voice show, Parfenov's films once a year, etc. Even such a simple example: now, in order to mention him in this text, I have been looking for the name of the host of the Vremya program for a long time and, with great difficulty, found it out from my friends on television; Well, ask yourself, does the name Vitaly Eliseev say anything to you? Channel One does not exist so that we know by name all the announcers of its news programs, and the fact that the blood libel sounds exactly on the air of Channel One may also be a deliberate attempt to show Konstantin Ernst that he will not be able to sit out in his Ostankino sharashka, while Dobrodeev and Kulistikov are at war

Illustration: Salvador Dali. Detail of the sketch for "Corpus Hypercubus"

I think everyone has already managed to familiarize themselves with the story of Channel One about a boy crucified by Ukrainian troops in Slavyansk. This link was sent to me by a pro-Ukrainian Ukrainian transhumanist, which ultimately became the key to understanding the possible background of the events.

I must say right away that this is my version and I will be glad to hear comments and alternative explanations. There is no mood to write out long sheets of text, so I will be brief.

The story is fabricated with a 99% probability. It was aired by Channel One. But we don't know who the customer is. The ancient Romans advised to look for who benefits. Who benefits from this story? I think not for Putin and not for Russia. Let me explain why I think so.

In Russia, more than 50% of people receive information from a zombie box. The entire box is financially controlled by Kovalchuk, and politically by the presidential administration, that is, Putin controls him twice. They can launch absolutely any propaganda there and control half of the population, which explains Putin's practically irreducible rating. The story about the boy can be believed, conventionally, by 30% of the audience, that is, 15% of the population. However, this is the most suggestible, controlled and dumb part of the population, which is not active and which Putin does not care about. Therefore, this plot was not shown for them.

Important. This Goebbels product was not ordered by Putin, but someone else. His task is not to convince the inhabitants of the Russian Federation of the atrocities of the Ukrainian army, but another.

The fact is that there were enough real atrocities. There are a lot of civilian casualties, plus there are casualties among journalists, there are dozens of stories that could be broadcast. It would be possible to instruct Mamontov to make a whole movie - about Odessa, about the village of Luganskaya, about any amount of hellish trash that the maddened ukrovoy create. And it would be convincing, because the truth. Look at Anna News, is there little horror there? However, this story, sewn with white threads, went on the air. Why?

I think that the only explanation is that this video was directed not at 30% of the dumbest, but at 10% of the smartest (more precisely, who consider themselves as such). I don't know who and how did it, but the effect of the video is that it convinces the so-called. normal residents of the Russian Federation (smart, liberal, white-ribbon workers, for freedom, for peace, etc.) in two things:
1. Putin's propaganda blatantly lies about Ukraine, since they obviously lied about the boy, then they lie about everything else. So, you have to believe in independent and honest ukrosmi.
2. Since the boy was not crucified on the bulletin board, it means that there were no other atrocities of the Ukrainian army. So Ukraine is white and fluffy, fighting for freedom and democracy. So all the talk about the violence of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the NG and the SS is nonsense, the animals are the militias, Russia attacked Ukraine and the freedom-loving Ukrainians need to be supported.

All this means that the plan for the implementation in Russia of the scenario of the color revolution, or some variation of it, remains in force.

These are the results I came to as a result of reflection. What do you think can be deduced from this episode?

"..... there was evidence that migrants in Germany began to rape underage children" (Channel One).

The story, laced with gruesome details and violent emotions, spread throughout the Russian media. And it did not go unnoticed by activists. Painfully, the news looks like another “crucified boy”. In the summer of 2014, Channel One invented it to show the atrocities of the “Kiev junta”. Later it turned out that the story is completely fake.

However, this time the Berlin police confirmed that the girl exists, she was indeed reported as missing.

"The official statement of the press service of law enforcement agencies was released by Deutsche Welle. They confirmed that the schoolgirl really disappeared on Monday. And on Tuesday she was found" (Channel 5).

But not a word about rape. According to the German press, the girl changed her testimony after interrogation. She said that she got into the car voluntarily. The medical examination did not reveal any traces of violence.

"... on the right-wing radical website azylterror, a message appeared that the police initially detained five alleged kidnappers and rapists of the minor, but released those suspected of serious crimes" due to the lack of places in the remand prison "(Vesti).

Channel One and Vesti reinforce their indignation with a certain video in which a man brags about his participation in the gang rape of a minor.

"... the fact that such cases are quite probable is indirectly proved by this video" (Vesti).

The general viewer may get the impression that the “heroes” of this video are the rapists of the Russian teenager. That's just video- more than 6 years and it has nothing to do with today's history, activists proved. It is not even known whether there are migrants in the frame at all. In social networks, they noted: although men speak with an accent, they use local slang.

Moreover, it was not hackers from a well-known network that distributed the video.

Today is exactly a week since the day when the Kiev security forces entered the Slavyansk abandoned by the militias. The story told to us by the inhabitant of the refugee camp in the Rostov region is dated precisely this time. She spoke of a public execution.

The woman introduced herself as Galina from Slavyansk, the mother of four children, a native of Western Ukraine, where the dissatisfaction of relatives caused her husband to join the militia. The conversation with Galina left a difficult feeling. Reason refuses to understand how such a thing is even possible today in the center of Europe. The heart does not believe that such a thing is possible at all.

Galina Pyshnyak: "City center. Lenin Square. Our City Executive Committee is the only square where you can drive all the people. Women were gathered in the square because there are no more men. Women, girls, old men. And this is called a demonstration execution. They took a child of three years old. a little boy with panties, in a T-shirt, like Jesus was nailed to a notice board. One nailed, two held. And all this was in my mother’s eyes. They held my mother. And my mother watched the child bleed. Screams. Screams. And they also took cuts, made, It was impossible for the child to suffer. It was impossible. People lost consciousness. And then, after an hour and a half, the child suffered and died, they took his mother, tied him unconscious to the tank and made three circles around the square. And the circle of the square was a kilometer. "

Yulia Chumakova: "Especially after this interview, you are in great danger. Do I understand correctly?"

Galina Pyshnyak: "I am like a traitor to the Motherland, because I am from the Transcarpathian region. My mother told me: you will come, I will shoot you myself. And the National Guard will shoot you. I have two executed articles. I am not afraid for myself. I feel sorry for the children. If it were not for the children, I would have taken the weapon myself and went into the militia. This is not the Ukrainian army, these are not liberators, these are creatures. When they entered the city, there was not a single militia. They fired at the city. They were engaged in looting. We were told by old grandmothers, the Nazis did not do that. This is the SS group "Galichina". They are local. They mocked the locals. Wives were raped and children were killed. And all this revolted their great-grandchildren. Revived back. "

Yulia Chumakova: "Are you afraid to talk about it?"

Galina Pyshnyak: “Let the whole world know how they mock people, because no one believes. Nobody knows. And these phosphorus bombs. These are the fragmentation mines. Children came, brought hedgehogs, and thorns, and that only And the corpses were lying, there was nowhere to collect. The morgue did not work. The stench of a decomposing body. Nobody would believe it, because no one was there, nobody saw. This is wildness for them. They were shooting tonight, I have a child even with an ear did not move, because it became habitual. A boy of seven years old: "Mom, what? Bombed? "I will say:" Yes, son. "And go on and on to sleep."

Yulia Chumakova: "You so boldly opened your face, said your name. Aren't you afraid?"

Galina Pyshnyak: "Because in three months I have become like a stone."

Yulia Chumakova: "What are you hoping for? It's clear that it will end someday."

Galina Pyshnyak: "Give us freedom. There are no Russians. Russians do not fight. These are ordinary hard workers - miners-workers have rebelled, because that's all. How much blood can you eat from a person. We are all of the same blood. Do not divide us. Yes, there is also among we are bad people. I will not say that everyone is one, but we are people. You should always not go to war, but agree with a word. And a good word always wins. "

Yulia Chumakova: "Thank you very much for agreeing to tell us all this. And good luck."