Against the people who tore down the Pushkin monument in central Kyiv, a case was opened for “disrespect toward society.” Russian?

Against the people who tore down the Pushkin monument in central Kyiv, a case was opened for “disrespect toward society.” Russian?

In central Kyiv near the building of the National Transport University (NTU) on Mykhailo Omelianovych-Pavlenko Street, 1 activists as part of the “Tear Me Down Completely” action dismantled the monument to the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin. This happened 11 October.

The action was dedicated to Lieutenant of the Armed Forces, activist and Korean language lecturer at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Denys Antypov, call sign “Buk.” He died in May 2022 while fighting Russian invaders, ZMINA notes.

A few days later civic activist Andriy Savchuk reported that on 14 October operatives from the Pechersky police department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in Kyiv came to his home following a statement by NTU Rector Mykola Dmytrychenko. Later, on 17 October, Savchuk, accompanied by a lawyer, was already at an interrogation with an investigator.

According to Savchuk, because of the bust’s dismantling the police opened a criminal case under part 1 of article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — “Hooliganism.” Under the code’s provisions, hooliganism is “a gross violation of public order motivated by obvious disrespect for society, accompanied by special brazenness or exceptional cynicism.”

Read the article to learn why activists dismantle monuments of Russian culture even when there are corresponding government decisions, and how realistic it is to hold them accountable “for disrespect toward society.”

#ЗнесиМенеПовністю: what is this about?

The flash mob #ЗнесиМенеПовністю was launched by activists on 24 September this year. Its start was announced by activist Oleg Slabospytskyi. The goal is to draw attention to monuments to Soviet and Russian imperial culture in Ukraine, particularly in the capital. Activists believe these should not exist in Ukraine.

“The first thing we rebranded was the Bolshevik criminal Mykola Shchors. His figure clearly falls under the Decommunization Law, and since 2016 the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance has been calling to remove the monument from the heart of the capital,” Slabospytskyi wrote.

The Shchors monument in Kyiv. Source: Oleg Slabospytskyi’s Facebook page

He also said that during 2016–2022 years the Kyiv City Council and the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine keep passing the responsibility for the monument’s dismantling back and forth. In his view, this is “a deliberate sabotage of the Decommunization Law’s implementation and a whitewashing of Soviet criminals like Shchors.”

Overall, according to the list compiled by activists, there are more than 200 memorial signs to Soviet and Russian figures in Kyiv that, in their opinion, should fall under derussification.

Meanwhile, the Kyiv City Council itself 14 May 2022 voted for the official dismantling of “memorial objects related to the history and culture of Russia and the USSR.” An annex to that decision contains an approximate list of such objects. Final approval of this list was assigned to a working group that was supposed to be created by 14 July. But despite that decision, according to Slabospytskyi, such a working group was only created very recently. So it hasn’t done much.

At the same time the list attached to the Kyiv City Council decision includes the Pushkin bust on the National Transport University grounds, the dismantling of which prompted the police to open a hooliganism case and summon Andriy Savchuk for questioning.

Idols of a foreign religion

Why do monuments to Russian culture have no place in Ukraine?

Publicist and writer, head of the Taras Shevchenko National Prize Committee Yurii Makarov has his own view on this.

“Any monument is a symbol. It is a remnant of pagan practices. And when we start praying to that monument, we awaken the pagan in ourselves. Don’t do it,” he said in the conversation “The myth of great culture, its creators and heroes” with journalist Myroslava Barchuk.

In his opinion, you can read if you like, not read if you don’t, admire or not, but when a person starts to worship a monument, that’s not right.

Yurii Makarov. Source: Ukrinform

“It doesn’t matter whom the monument is dedicated to, Shchors or, forgive me a hundred times, Taras Shevchenko… Among hundreds of them there are few that truly have artistic value. Mostly a ‘blockhead’ is erected to stake a claim to territory. But at least that is the ‘right’ blockhead, ours. And we tolerate the idols of a foreign religion, worship them, fear anything happening to them, because, you see, — it’s ‘artistic value,’” Makarov is convinced.

The writer recalled that the Pushkin bust was actually installed on the square of Ivan Mazepa, whom the poet so “epically defamed” in the eponymous poem. Nearby once stood the Mazepa-era St. Nicholas Military Cathedral — a magnificent example of Ukrainian Baroque. So one could say justice was finally served, albeit late.

“Perhaps I would also like the dismantling to happen in some ‘intelligent’ way. But when the authorized institutions drop the ball, one must be ready for citizens who care to take justice into their own hands. And this applies not only to culture,” the writer said.

The activists themselves cite these arguments for tearing down Pushkin monuments.

The poet is a symbol of Russian imperialism, an embodiment of the “great mighty Russian language,” a marker of the “Russian world” and identity.

In his works he openly promoted hatred of Ukrainians and Poles, treated Hetman Ivan Mazepa with contempt, and supported the genocide of peoples of the Caucasus.

Pushkin denied Ukrainian statehood — he called Ukraine “Little Russia” and reproached it for wanting independence.

Regarding the specific bust on the NTU grounds, it was brought to Kyiv from Petersburg in 1899 and installed in honor of the 100-anniversary of the Russian poet’s birth.

In total there are still eight objects in the Ukrainian capital honoring Pushkin. These include the monument on Peremohy Avenue, a memorial plaque on Mykhailo Hrushevsky Street, a bust at the Universytet metro station and on the façade of a building on Kostiantynivska Street. There are monuments to the Russian poet on the grounds of the Household Museum on Kudryavska Street and Gymnasium No. 3, a bust in the V. I. Vernadsky National Library, and an image on the arch in front of the entrance to the National Library for Children.

According to Slabospytskyi, whether all monuments that remind people of Ukraine’s colonial past will be torn down depends on the Kyiv City Council and the Ministry of Culture. He believes it will happen inevitably, but it may finally be done officially or again by the hands of active citizens.

Human rights defender, head of the project to protect members of civil society at the Human Rights Center ZMINA Lyudmyla Yankina also believes the authorities should ensure that decisions to dismantle such monuments are carried out promptly so activists would not have to step in.

“The only thing to pay attention to is that local self-government bodies should speed up the process of dismantling such monuments across Ukraine before residents whose cities are shelled daily by Russian missiles take matters into their own hands, so as to leave no space for anything that reminds of Russia,” she said.

By the way, the Pushkin bust near NTU that activists dismantled is not listed in either the local or national registers of cultural heritage monuments of national significance entered into the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine by the Ministry of Culture. So, apparently, it has no artistic value.

Catherine II against the activists

The situation with Andriy Savchuk is not the first recently. In September in Odesa the patrol police detained activist of the local chapter of the All-Ukrainian Union “Automaidan,” Artak Hryhoryan, after he publicly painted the monument to the Russian empress Catherine II.

He was accused of violating beautification rules — article 152 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

Before Hryhoryan’s action it became known that local police were looking for the woman who wrote “Catherine = Putin” on the empress’s monument. This was recorded by surveillance cameras.

The “Founders of the City” monument in Odesa. Source: Artak Hryhoryan’s Facebook page

In a comment to ZMINA the activist said he was supposed to speak before deputies of the Odesa City Council to explain his actions. After that they were to choose the amount of his fine. But on the appointed day he couldn’t speak because the police allegedly did not submit the original protocol for the deputies’ review. Artak only has a copy.

“Is this the police acting, or the local authorities? I don’t know. But if the city authorities wanted to simply ‘bury’ my case, they are doing it well. It’s a pity, I thought I would be able to speak to them, it would have been a good opportunity to express my thoughts and hear theirs,” Hryhoryan said.

Overall, activists for many years have demanded that the Odesa city authorities remove the monument to the Russian empress, installed back in 1900. After the revolution of 1917 it was removed, and the bronze fragments were kept in the city’s local history museum. During the restoration of Catherine Square in 2007 the monument was returned to its former place. For eight years activists tried to remove it through the courts.

However the monument remains in place. Even though in 2017 the Prymorsky District Court, at the suit of the Union of Public Organizations “Association of Cossack Societies ‘Sich’” against the Odesa City Council, recognized the relocation of the “To the Potemkin Descendants” monument to Customs Square as illegal and the installation in its place on Catherine Square of the “Founders of Odesa” monument as unlawful.

On 2018 the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal left that decision unchanged, thus recognizing that the “To the Potemkin Descendants” monument was moved to Customs Square illegally, but did not oblige the authorities to return the monument to Catherine Square. At the same time the court denied the plaintiffs’ appeal regarding comprehensive restoration of Catherine Square: the Association believes the installation of the monument was directed “against the national dignity of Ukrainians and undermines national security.”

The situation with the monument to the Russian empress escalated after the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation. Two petitions calling for removal of the monument were published on the President of Ukraine’s website; both gathered the number of signatures required for consideration.

In September the press service of the Odesa City Council announced public discussions in the form of an online conference on the fate of the Catherine II monument. An electronic poll of residents of the city territorial community ran from 20 September to 20 October on the “Socially Active Citizen” platform.

Artak Hryhoryan hopes that at the next city council session the issue of dismantling the monument will be on the agenda and that the majority of deputies will vote to remove it from the square. If not — he believes the monument will be dismantled anyway because there is public demand for it.

“When I’m asked what will happen for dismantling the Catherine II monument, I answer — it will be a political case and no one knows the consequences,” the activist said.

“Special brazenness and exceptional cynicism”: can activists who tore down the Pushkin bust at NTU really be punished?

The Criminal Code article charged against the activists who dismantled the Pushkin bust reads as “a gross violation of public order motivated by obvious disrespect for society, accompanied by special brazenness or exceptional cynicism.”

Meanwhile activist Andriy Savchuk is convinced that the real act of special brazenness, exceptional cynicism and disrespect for Ukrainian society is that Pushkin monuments and other symbols of the “Russian world” still stand in Ukraine in the eighth year of the war with Russia.

“Of course I understand: some statement, an order, metrics. But really, at a time when the state-terrorist Russia constantly shells us with missiles and kamikaze drones, the National Police found nothing better than to protect monuments to Russian chauvinists and persecute civic activists?” he says.

Activists also view the position of NTU Rector Mykola Dmytrychenko, whose statement prompted the police to open an investigation, as biased.

They recall that he was appointed to the post under President Viktor Yanukovych, and on 24 August 2013 the fugitive president even awarded the NTU rector the Order of Merit, First Class.

Former students in comments under Savchuk’s post say that on Dmytrychenko’s orders they were allegedly forced to join rallies in support of the Party of Regions and then-Minister of Education Dmytro Tabachnyk.

Euromaidan SOS once wrote about pressure on students from the university administration.

So far neither the rector nor anyone from NTU leadership has commented on the situation. ZMINA sent the university a request asking whether the bust dismantled by activists is on the university’s balance sheet. The reply clearly stated that it is not.

However, according to lawyer Danylo Popkov of the Human Rights Center ZMINA, the owner of a monument is responsible for its dismantling. Dismantling can happen in two cases: the owner decides to remove it themselves, or they are obliged to do so by law or a court decision. Also in some cases a monument can be moved by decision of local authorities.

In the case of the Pushkin bust dismantled near NTU, probably neither of the first two applied, and it was the activists’ initiative.

But here it is necessary to clarify who has the monument on their balance sheet, Popkov noted. Only the owner (balance holder) can make a claim for damage. If the university is not the owner, then the institution is not a victim in this case.

Still, if a case has already been opened, could activists ultimately be held liable under article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Hooliganism”?

Answering this question, Popkov noted that the article itself, in his opinion, is a Soviet relic and is written so that, if the security forces wish, they can fit almost any actions under it. In fact, the authorities of the “workers and peasants” actively used this article to persecute dissidents, he said.

As an example, Popkov recalled one such case — dissident Mykola Kuntsevych. In May 1974 he and an acquaintance went to the Taras Shevchenko monument in Kyiv, where he first read two of his fables. Two days later he was arrested and then sentenced to five years in prison for “malicious hooliganism.”

Mykola Kuntsevych. Photo: Dariia Hirna/Hromadske

However, in Andriy Savchuk’s case, the expert says the formulation about “malicious disrespect toward society” certainly cannot be applied. After all, Ukrainian society is voluntarily dismantling monuments to Russian cultural and historical figures, including Pushkin, and renaming toponyms.

Thus in April–May city authorities in Uzhhorod, Mukachevo, Ternopil and Mykolaiv removed their “Pushkins.” The Ministry of Culture, for its part, named Pushkin among 10 of the most used Russian toponyms that need to be renamed. In addition to Pushkin, the list includes poets Vladimir Mayakovsky and Mikhail Lermontov, writer Maxim Gorky, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, pilot Valery Chkalov, breeder Ivan Michurin and others.

So in the case of the Pushkin bust, Popkov believes it is more accurate to speak of disrespect toward society when owners of such monuments ignore public demands to remove them.

“Other formulations of the article, such as ‘special brazenness or exceptional cynicism,’ due to their abstractness are more vivid literary metaphors than adequate legal categories. And these elements must be present to consider a torn-down bust a crime. Proving this will also greatly complicate the task for the police and prosecutor’s office,” he said.

At the same time Lyudmyla Yankina is convinced that in Andriy Savchuk’s case there is an obvious disproportion between the act and the potentially possible punishment:

“Considering the fact that some local governments earlier adopted decisions to dismantle Pushkin monuments, and also considering the Kyivan City State Administration decision of 14 May this year regarding the removal from Kyiv’s public space of memorial objects reflecting Soviet and Russian historical narratives or containing inaccurate historical information, there is no public danger in Andriy Savchuk’s act. Therefore, all the plaintiff’s and law enforcement’s claims are pointless.”

Savchuk himself said he learned the criminal case was opened only because of the rector’s statement.

“I hope that in the near future the police will objectively investigate everything and close the case for lack of a crime. And this 296 article of the Criminal Code will turn out to be just an unfortunate misunderstanding,” he believes.

He added that the same goes for any further fines and cases against activists who are forced to do the work of authorities in cleansing Ukraine of the “Russian world.”

And the main conclusion of this story, in Lyudmyla Yankina’s view, is that state and local authorities, owners and balance holders of such monuments must realize that a reevaluation of values is happening in Ukraine. If they do not want conflicts to arise on this basis, they should resolve these issues themselves and in a timely manner, rather than wait until monuments are damaged or destroyed.

Nataliya Adamovych, published in the Human Rights Center ZMINA