The Heartbreaking Irony of ‘Winter on Fire’
《凜冬烈火：烏克蘭自由之戰》沒告訴你的事
原文：The Nation https://tinyurl.com/y2vcsfpk
作者：Lev Golinkin
譯文：苦勞網 https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/93390
譯者：臨時老翻組
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.
獲奧斯卡提名的Netflix（網飛）紀錄片《凜冬烈火：烏克蘭為自由而戰》（Winter on
Fire）向觀眾呈現烏克蘭市民每天面對凶殘防暴警察的故事，而這些警察均由俄羅斯總統
普京暗中支持的時任烏克蘭總統亞努科維奇（Viktor Yanukovych）所操控。影片中，由
社會行動者、藝術家、戴著大領巾的阿婆、東正教神父和年青學生所組成色彩繽紛的示威
人群，彷彿在顯示烏克蘭所有人都在廣場革命中站出來了。但唯獨有些人失去了蹤影——
新納粹主義者被導演刻意刪去了。
“A CRUCIAL ROLE”
白人至上主義者在事件中擔重要角色
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，烏克蘭遠在此次運動前已發生極右翼的運動。2010年，烏克蘭時任總統亞努
科維奇因高度讚揚一名民族主義者班傑拉（Stepan Bandera）而引來國際社會反彈，因為
班傑拉在二戰中曾為地下軍首領，並需為屠殺千千萬萬猶太人和波蘭人的事件負責。廣場
革命前，烏克蘭是政黨「社會國民大會」（Social-National Assembly）大本營。這是個
白人至上主義的組織，其頭目名叫比萊茨基（Andriy Biletsky）。這位比萊茨基曾指出
這個組織的目標是要「為了白人種族的生存，要帶領白人種族在世上進行最後的聖戰」。
除此以外還有一名國會議員加尼伯克（Oleh Tyahnybok）所帶領的全烏克蘭聯盟「自由」
（Svoboda）。這個政黨在2004年聲稱要調查「莫斯科猶太人聯合黑手黨」（譯按：「黑
手黨」僅為比喻），因這黑手黨已控制了基輔云云——比萊茨基的口不擇言，登上不少國
際新聞的頭條。2012年，一名該黨政客更稱呼烏克蘭土生土長的女演員蜜拉·庫妮絲（
Mila Kunis）為「骯髒的猶太人」來侮辱她。所有這些極右翼組織，都需要一個機會可以
光明正大地做他們要做的事，而片中的廣場革命，就給了他們這個機會。
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.”
開始的時候，這些來自不同派系的極右翼份子在廣場革命的人群中仍不是核心人物。可是
，當2013年，行動轉趨暴力和激烈化，以致推翻了親俄總統，帶來內戰和克里米亞再次獨
立等等，情況就不同了。《紐約客》雜誌形容這些右翼份子「扮演了相當重要的角色，為
當時仍未準備好要激烈鬥爭的示威者提供了不少力量。」這個重要的角色，在不同立場的
媒體中都有相近的闡述，包括《衛報》、英國廣播電台（BBC）、路透社和《國家利益》
雜誌（The National Interest）。就連索本（Hannah Thoburn）這位相當支持廣場革命
的評論人，都指出《凜冬烈火》這齣紀錄片未能恰當描述極右翼組織在這場鬥爭中的積極
參與。
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.
對極右翼在此次革命中做過的事，最嚴重的指控來自一名加拿大渥太華大學的教授凱查諾
維斯基（Ivan Katchanovski）。他仔細研究了2014年2月20日有神秘槍手射殺超過50名平
民的事件。這事件除了是令時任親俄總統下台的重要轉捩點，也是《凜冬烈火》這齣影片
的高潮所在。凱查諾維斯基透過法庭的文獻和其他證據，指認極右翼組織不單在抗爭前線
向警察開槍去挑引衝突，更需為射殺50名示威者並嫁禍於人的事件負責。而基輔政府卻仍
未能調查當日事件的實際情況。
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.”)
極右翼份子在《凜冬烈火》這齣紀錄片中的完全缺席。與其他相同主題的紀錄片比較時，
這點更加明顯而引人注目。在《紐約客》雜誌中獲好評的《Maidan: Tonight Tomorrow》
便把極右翼包含在影片內，雖然只有九分鐘。而法國電影《Masks of the Revolution》
則主要集中於描述這些極右份子在廣場革命後的角色。（諷刺地，革命後的烏克蘭政府卻
企圖製造言禁，指這電影製造錯誤觀念，並企圖令《Masks of the Revolution》無法在
法國電視台公映。)
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.
若無這些新納粹份子推動，烏克蘭當時的民選總統便不會那麼容易被推翻，而《凜冬烈火
》這樣子的片名更不可能會出現。然而，紀錄片的導演卻選擇了絕口不提。（雖然，影片
背景曾出現過他們的旗幟，一名受訪者也戴著印有二戰時參與大屠殺的班傑拉領巾，共有
兩個鏡頭見到極右政黨的頭領加尼伯克在背景中走來走去，但這些對一位根本不認識它們
的美國觀眾幾近毫無意義）（譯按：應該是熟悉烏克蘭政治以外的人都難以連上任何關係
）。導演為何嘗試排除使他的影片拍得成的主因，實在令人費解。
“JELLY SIDE UP”
美國駐烏克蘭大使：「非常樂觀」
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.”
《凜冬烈火》另一個嚴重失真是將廣場革命描述為一個沒有西方干涉的獨立現象。影片強
烈指涉後來被推翻的總統亞努科維奇與俄羅斯關係密切，同時把抗議者描述成純粹自發、
來自草根，而不存在任何外國利益。來訪的美國政客在片中只出現了十秒，但影幕上寫的
文字卻是這些美國人「與總統亞努科維奇會面以找尋解決當前危機的外交方法。」
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.
然而不同的證據顯示美國在2013至14年這個冬天的動盪中的角色，顯然不只是個仲裁者。
最明顯的例子就是一通被截聽的電話通話。這通電話是美國助理國務卿紐蘭（Victoria
Nuland）與美國駐烏克蘭大使派亞特（Geoffrey Pyatt）之間的對話。這個對話內容中，
顯示二人好像似兩個企業高層在討論如何做企業重組一般，助理國務卿紐蘭指示駐烏大使
哪個烏克蘭政治領袖要成為日後的總理，日後這些人要如何在談判桌上把聯合國和歐盟邊
緣化，還有如何令烏克蘭危機安全著陸。駐烏大使派亞特更熱烈地表示「非常樂觀」。
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.
這通電話的內容於2014年2月4日流出。然而這並非這兩位人士第一次深入干預這次廣場革
命。2013年12月11日，美國的助理國務卿和駐烏克蘭大使高調地前往抗爭現場視察，還派
曲奇餅給示威者。三天後，美國參議員馬侃（John McCain）特地飛到基輔向群眾演講。
參議員馬侃和墨菲（Chris Murphy）更與極右政黨領袖加尼伯克同台。這些都是烏克蘭和
西方大眾媒體都拍到的事實，但紀錄片絕口不提。明顯地，美國政治高層在事件中的參與
，事實上影響著《凜冬烈火》中烏克蘭民眾的命運。
“A FILMMAKER, NOT A JOURNALIST”
「我是一個導演，不是一個記者」
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.
其實，這齣影片令人驚訝之處，並不在於它如何漂白了廣場革命的故事，而是導演艾菲尼
夫斯基（Evgeny Afineevsky）對於這個行為的直言不諱。在一個美資電台「自由歐洲」
(Radio Free Europe) 的訪問中，記者提及影片掩飾了一個新納粹組織「右區」（
Right Sector）的暴行。這些暴行後期被國際特赦組織揭發，指右區對異見者施虐。對此
導演嗤笑道：「你知嗎？右區與其他抗爭者都有參與抗爭，是抗爭的一部份。」導演的意
思有點曖昧，就像他另一個含糊回應：「我是一個導演，不是一個記者」。自由歐洲電台
指導演這樣說時，是在回應有人指他的影片對事件過度簡化。
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.”
導演在接受另一媒體「馬沙布爾」（Mashable）訪問時，亦重覆了這個說法。這次他被問
及為何影片選擇抹走了在烏克蘭東部俄語區的反對廣場革命的示威，而這些示威在2014年
春天（譯按：革命後前反對派當權後）被極右翼黨徒非常惡毒地鎮壓。馬沙布爾的文章指
出：「《凜冬烈火》並未提及甚至是刻意排除那場革命眾多複雜的問題。」
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.
這些被刪去的「另類觀點」當然是來自全國2,200萬反對廣場革命的聲音。這個數字，乃
是由支持廣場革命的《基輔日報》在2013年12月所報導。如果美國觀眾想更貼近地想像這
個事情，就試想像一個外國導演想拍攝一齣歌頌美國步槍協會（National Rifle
Association of America ，NRA）的紀錄片，而將之命名為《美國自由之戰》，而同時選
擇完全不提及另外幾千百萬反對該協會的人的聲音，就可以明白了。
POINT OF VIEW VERSUS PROPAGANDA
「觀點角度」 與「政治宣傳」 的對壘
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.
關於如何準確呈現複雜事件的爭議，在紀錄片來說可謂毫不陌生（現時對另一齣Netflix
原創紀錄片《謀殺犯的形成》（Making a Murderer）的爭辯又是一例)。雖然難有清晰的
倫理準則，但問題的核心在於：製片人在敍事中刻意刪去某些事實以表達觀點時，刪到什
麼程度會變成「過界」而變成純粹政治宣傳？
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.
《凜冬烈火》忽略許多基本事實，導致對烏克蘭歷史、政治、宗教、社會構成甚至語言理
解欠佳（甚至缺乏認識）的觀眾，只能從中接收對烏克蘭發展觀的單一觀點。這齣紀錄片
已經廣泛地傳播至不同的觀眾，在Netflix和奧斯卡獲獎的推波助瀾下，導演艾菲尼夫斯
基扭曲地呈現那些發生在某個異地的不為人熟悉的事件，並將這個導致長期內戰、甚至是
數十年來美俄對峙局勢最高張的事件，僅僅描述成「烏克蘭自由之戰」。在這個歪曲的過
程中，導演乾脆把一半烏克蘭人口（接近2,200萬人）強烈反對廣場革命這個基本事實完
全抹去不提。另一個刻意刪去的事件，就是打鬥最激烈的主事者根本不是熱愛自由的民眾
，而是白人至上主義者與新納粹支持者。
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.
如果導演不只是在基輔看到防暴警鎮壓人民後，就因而刻意排除了某些另類意見，而是走
到烏克蘭東部實地觀看看，或許《凜冬烈火》對整起事件就會有不同的呈現。如果他曾走
過頓巴斯（Donbass）這個在2014年下旬被重型武器轟打成廢墟的地方，與曾遭受極右極
端分子折磨的倖存者相遇，並和不同派系發動無差別炮擊被殺者的遺孀交談，並注視一下
超過二百萬東烏克蘭人因此淪為流亡難民，他或許就不會抹煞這些反對廣場革命的人士的
存在。很不幸，艾菲尼夫斯基斯乎早已決定，哪些人才夠資格為他建構的神話中的英雄人
物。
AFTER WINTER ON FIRE
凜冬烈火之後
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.
武裝極端種族主義者、美國政治人物、二千多萬烏克蘭人的反對意見——這些都是令上述
自由之戰的神話講不通的尷尬因素，要刻意將之移除需要仔細甚至是奧斯卡級數的剪接。
但移除了這些現實發生的事情最終帶來了更多問題。實際上，在來自廣場的力量奪取基輔
控制權後的兩年，極右翼政客同美國政府對烏克蘭社會的影響力已經變得更為深遠。
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.
與防暴警察的對抗給予白人至上組織一個機會，奪取廣場革命的中心角色。和烏克蘭東部
叛軍的漫長戰爭，讓極右力量從不同的小幫派擴張成為組織嚴密的軍事化團體。在新納粹
的獵狼符號和班傑拉的黑紅旗之下繼續發展。
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.
近一年來，這些令人憂慮的發展甚少出現在西方媒體的報導之中，後者也如《凜冬烈火》
一樣迴避了廣場革命的黑暗面。新納粹兵團的故事得以漸漸流傳到西方，源於一位記者帕
裡（Robert Parry）鍥而不捨的調查報導，還有美國國會議員柯尼爾斯（John Conyers）
和約霍（Ted Yoho）提案要求禁止美國資助惡名昭彰的亞速（Azov）兵團。這兵團是由比
萊茨基建立的組織，並被《紐約時報》稱為「公然的新納粹」，「今天美國」（USA
Today）對此也有所報導。
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.
除了現時在烏克蘭東南部發生的粗暴鎮壓異見外，極右的非正規軍事人員還犯下駭人聽聞
的侵犯人權事件。國際特赦組織曾指出，數個極右份子的軍團曾犯下酷刑、綁架、謀殺和
戰爭罪行。有時候，這些軍團也會將矛頭轉向政府，與警察和警衛發生衝突，甚至造成傷
亡。正如評論家所指，基輔政府對這些武裝極端民族主義者的控制，根本近乎放縱。
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.
在政治戰線上，美國助理國務卿紐蘭和駐烏克蘭大使派亞特的操作讓美國對烏克蘭造成相
當大的影響。根據自彭博專欄作家柏席茨基（Leonid Bershidsky）引用具聲譽的烏克蘭
調查記者列什先科（Sergei Leschenko）所言：「派亞特和美國政府現時的影響力，是自
烏克蘭獨立以來史無前例地巨大。」2015年8月，派亞特和紐蘭留意到烏克蘭議會需通過
投票，支持一份不太受歡迎的修正案，而成事其實需要美國相當大的介入。當時，美國副
總統拜登表示，他與烏克蘭總統波洛申科（Petro Poroshenko）的談話次數還多於與他的
妻子，這是個令人尷尬的笑話，同時也承認華盛頓介入基輔的事務。
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《凜冬烈火》結束時，一位年輕的行動者說：「23年來，我們只在文件上獲得獨立，但
現在……它已成為現實。」 截至2015年底，隨著越來越多的公眾對廣場革命政府的幻想
破滅，並擔憂極右翼軍事政變的危機，由美國在背後支持的基輔政府獲得比被前總統亞努
科維奇被推翻前更低的支持率，不過同時，也有越來越多的公眾對廣場革命政府的幻滅，
並擔憂極右翼軍事政變的危機。看來，就像在伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亞，美式民主的種子
在基輔，同樣沒有找到肥沃的土地。
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.
這便是《凜冬烈火》最為諷刺及令人心碎的現實。該紀錄片像許多西方對烏克蘭的傳媒報
導一樣，向西方讀者推銷一個被神化、洗白的版本， 將廣場革命粉飾成一場完全只是由
熱愛自由民主的人參與的運動。可是這個神話背後所忽視的元素，卻正在威脅烏克蘭得到
真正自由民主的機會。