everyone chooses loyal representatives of the public at the time that this scheme did not work so hard and with the center it would be difficult to miss it imperceptibly although it was successful with the ucf, unfortunately, yes, hmm, all the representatives, except for these three who represented the ministry of culture, were completely e- they are decent professional people. they were from the ministry for the seed, so as to demonstrate a kind of good will . yuryemenko, you and i are barley and such gentlemen . sezonovsky is the owner of the film.ua company, which has now essentially monopolized the tv

market. er, created at the expense of the state cinema, and to see the announcements of all the films created by the companies, and now the state cinema has turned into a kind of branch of this private company and the second character - it was mr. berkovsky, who now heads the ukrainian cultural fund at that time, it means he was not leading it, because there was also a competition going on at the same time. and we still did not know who this gray horse was, what she would become, what she would lead the ukrainian government, later, retrospectively, when i analyzed some of the stories that were happening in the state, and he was the head of the central state film and photophone archives at the time i have wheat, er, it has come to me that mr. berkovsky has long been in a relationship with such a deputy, er, maryna kudarchuk, the head of this state cinema. well, we thought that in principle, such a constellation it's quite eh. hmmm, it's quite logical, it's quite natural, and

there were great chances that the nominations from eh, from the team about ideas, and olenka passed, but you know that the voting was ranked, that is, each member of eh, each member of the commission could vote for each eh e candidate many times we could vote and olenka scored six votes against five votes of the e-e creature of the bank olena lavreniuk and when these completely confused representatives and members of the commission understood from the ministry of culture that the difference was only one vote that although they interrupted of course everyone's phones rang illenko, they demanded that he vote for lavrenyuk and another candidate - another member of the commission understood that it was possible to push , then this strange character dushutin appeared with his

clause in the name of the ministry of culture, the minister of culture 40 minutes after the registration of this statement dushutin wrote a well-known letter to the commission with a demand to replay the competition to listen once again to this economy. ivan anusy had to explain who dushukin was. what were his arguments. dushutin is a russian scammer who worked for a long time in he brought something to the russian military-industrial complex to the point of bankruptcy and while fleeing from russia he got a canadian passport and found himself in ukraine in a strange way as a representative this was the union-entrepreneurs of industrialists and entrepreneurs who were once headed by kinakh in the zero

years of the prem' prime minister of ukraine it turned out later, when we made an information request, that he has no relation to this, to this union, but still he wrote in his resume that he was either a co-founder or a secretary. well, nothing like that he could get into the territory of the ministry of culture of any authority according to the protocol. i couldn't get into it, and that's why i understand him. on the basis of his complaint to the e-e in may 21st, the minister of culture and information policy oleksandr tkachenko tkachenko did not sign a contract with olena honcharuk, the winner of the competition for the

position of the director of the e-e. there was a catch that was purely formal from the first, he claimed that the commission should consider when you, er, there was a statement from the commission that the contest was fair and transparent, the balls and rights were not violated. moreover , he is not even a citizen of ukraine, so he had a new song the minister says that now the court has to decide because the court has already filed for the annulment of the results of the competition and while the court is in progress he cannot appoint in the end when the court still did not recognize any violations, third arguments have already appeared, he is poor in searching for these arguments tkachenko i simply turned around and studied the third argument so that the dovzhenka center does not know what it wants to do and what kind of institution it is, i do not understand, no one does not

understand what they want to do. this is such an absurd argument from the minister or the ministry itself approves the statute of the institution of subordinates, that is, determines their function they are preparing to exist, that is, if the minister believed that the dovzhenko center did not know what he was doing, or if the minister believed that he should be doing something else, he had full rights to sign another charter, define other goals of the dovzhenko center’s operation, but with not only tkachenko but many people were puzzled by the history of the dovzhenko center, the synthetic nature of the institution itself. no, it was provoked by the fact that in ukraine there is no specific legislation on the film archive volume. the dovzhenko center existed at the intersection of several different legislative fields and as a museum and it is a museum and as an archive it is an archive and as the film storage company

is a storage facility, and in a certain sense it is also like an industrial facility, because the dovzhenko center also has a laboratory that uses copiers, so due to the lack of legislation, this is a problem the lawmaker on the dovzhenko center or the dovzhenko center was built on the models of western film archives because of this problem. actually, they, i mean the government and the minister, believed that they had the right to impose such a thing. here is such a counterargument that since the dovzhenko center is not described by any of the laws, its function is described with a few, accordingly , some narrower legislation should be squeezed in, and it should be passed through such a loophole , what are they doing now? dovzhenko, this is not in the soviet legislation prescribed for soviet archives, but it is called the law

on the national archival fund and archival institutions, which will be adopted in 1993 and as a tracing paper from the russian law of the same name. actually, the philosophy of this law is this, you can imagine that. do you know what soviet archives are? yes, they are not archives. the only thing is that they reflect the nature of censorship, the nature of prohibitions, the nature of exclusions from censorship, er, this is the nature of the soviet archive, and definitely their function was er, to hide information. to hide information and not to make it available and actually, there are also many, please, then, please, explain now, again, i am interested in

the motive. the time of recognition or non-recognition, so these competitions are victorious, if how many spears break around the dovzhenko centers and the state leadership, then what is the motive to squeeze the activity of the dovzhenko center into a soviet-type law in 1993 , what is the motive, why is this being done we are only talking about the argument given by the minister and which for some reason became the public communication of the state cinema about the fact that the dovzhenko center is neither a museum nor archives, which is not true, that the debasement of its functions , we are talking purely about mechanical mechanical argumentation, the motive was different, firstly, the property is unconditional, and secondly, this is the taming of a wayward institution, after all, you see that such a

victorious step has been taken by the presidential team since the presidential elections, throwing on the way to all the new institutions did not stand up to the nidershkino or the ucf, many other institutions of the ministry of education collapsed and turned into such post-soviet absolutely appendix. and here i find that the dovzhenko center also met and definitely those institutions swallowed it quite quickly, they saw that there was some kind of disturbance some kind of dissatisfaction people are picketing something there, but to say that this prevents them when no, therefore, the logical next step was to uh, to fill the dovzhenko center well, so that it would not be a problem for others, you know not it is possible, but the government must be sacred and sacred, and it is not possible to speak against the government or any of its intentions, even if they are criminal. i think that this is a very

important psychological moment, and in this sense , the resistance of the dovzhenko center is also very important. a step of political resistance, including in such a system, such an architecture of power, such philosophies of power. so, on november 2, olena honcharuk, the acting director of the center, dovzhenka, is removed from her post after an audit. in her place, the state cinema appoints yulia kastan, who calls herself a lawyer in corporate law, but she specializes in hypnotherapy, owns a dog training center, and now let's go back to uh, until november 9, when the team when the team went to the steps of the dovzhenka center and did not let

yulia chestnut go to work. she was accompanied by also, to oleksandr, i understand that this is maryna kudarchuk’s deputy, that’s right, the deputy head of state cinema, yes, obviously. i’m not familiar with the current composition of state cinema, but i know that everyone who works now is the majority. why aren’t they cinematographers ? auditors, crushers, former policemen. that is , these state actors have turned into such a police penal body now. actually, these functions are unified and effective. well, er , i looked. no er any explanations from er yulia kastan about what she is going to do and er and some logic er for her actions it seems that people just came

to perform some formal procedure so some kind of mission and to leave er means i know that all films from the collections and property of the dovzhenko center should be transferred to a state institution called the scientific center of cinematography. what is this? what is this? what is this institution ? m-m e-e dormant institutions were created about ministries with such an organizational and legal form or state institutions or state enterprises which legal entities through which ministries paid what they cannot pay for services

any events and so on, because the ministry cannot pay directly, there must be some legal entity if they wanted to hold a conference there or that they paid through these pads, they often paid to arrange something, in most cases not to arrange anything, just to rent money and such deu to dpshok their mass from pocket money. also, i am one of those pocket girls. i understand that it was created with the assistance or indirect direct participation of mr. tsomkin, this is the former deputy head of the state cinema under yanukovych and the period then, after being polished, he already managed to be a part of the supervisory board of the ucf and in-, he can lead to some union er representing the interests of the television lobby and so on

. things to say, this yuriy yuriy shevchuk, who is now koderchuk's deputy, she is his creation, he brought her once from the tourism agency, there was such a crutch, the agency was disbanded and part of his staff headed by the recording staff, discs in the 11th year, yes, and that's it just sleeping if the institution is completely fake which now they are going to hand over the task to each of this person who impresses with the talents of the renaissance of an absolutely individual in order to implement the provisions of this order on the liquidation in essence yes , because there is not much time for this dana until december 31 you have time they disappeared, there is not much

time left, one and a half months, and she is definitely not going to conduct any audit, any financial analysis of it. and she must conduct an inventory or distribution of property before inventory and drawing up the act of acceptance of the transfer, this will be its function in order to divide the property , which includes the collection of the dovzhenko center, and to fulfill the tasks of this order. in their actions a-a who is behind this , what parallel directions or interests intersect at the dovzhenko center er-er who is actually destroying the er-er dovzhenko center you know for a long time these

are the same people who destroyed the ukr who destroyed doshkin as transparent institution, i mean, we should not fall into the illusion of believing that if the institution remains in its legal forms, then they have become so. it's on the listed institutions. these are the same people, it definitely means the most important figure of ukrainian cinematography andriy yermakina, only cinematography , he has now from the very beginning tried to reform it, because um, i think that in this sense he is definitely an expressionist, not only the owner of dissatisfaction, but i also mention in my posts the

conflict of the state cinema with volodymyr zelenskyi. when he was not yet the president, we must remember that this was a fateful conflict. when you go to the cinema, it banned the rental of the matchmaker series and actually, when it was burning , that's when the dirty absolutely discrediting company started on 1+1, because it was tkachenko, who is now the minister of culture. that is, all the figurines, all the actors of that war who stood on two different sides, are now generally represented and the party that you considered yourself victimized me is now represented in power, this is tkachenko, this is yarmak, this is sushko , the deputy is the voice of the people and the head of the faction is the voice of the people in the parliament, the chairman should be told under

the committee on cinematography in the verkhovna rada, this person did not shy away from coming to meetings at all of the supervisory board of the ucf and simply demand forward direct corrupt actions using the power of their a meeting of the council for the support of cinematography, to demand from them a review of the ratings of contests in the film project, and so on, that is, a person generally had a carte blanche, he could authorize himself, the office of the president, er, hmm, speak on behalf of the president in all such matters, be decisive like that, sushko, of course, very he is an important figure in

this architecture. i know that he is already eh if it were not so clean in the office of the president as it was in the first years, but his destructive eh destructive activity will remain in history, you know. he is very for a good two years, he was engaged in the deconstruction of this architecture of post-maidan cultural institutions, which was built, at the same time, it should be said that he absolutely sincerely believed that he was doing good, doing good, you know, absolutely sincerely, a person believed that everything was corrupt after the maidan, everyone shared resources and money among themselves and so on, he did not even assume the possibility that these institutions worked in a democratic way, these are the interested persons in power that i have listed, but now

many hypotheses are being put forward about who isbusiness is interested in acquiring this land plot. there were a lot of different ones. now ivan, we will move on to business. i will also ask you about the ministry of culture. previously, the dovzhenko center belonged to the ministry of culture , information policy, then it was transferred to the state cinema , the minister of culture tkachenko maye relation to this story now, of course, you mean the story of the destruction, well, of course, as you mentioned, he did not appoint, contrary to the law, the director of koper to the director of olena honcharuk the winner of the competition using various bunnies. for this, he is now washing his hands, claiming that since the ministry is not the governing body for the dovzhenko center, therefore it

was not responsible for its funds, although the ministry is responsible for the museum fund for national cultural heritage in any jurisdiction in which legal what form of ownership are these objects and this is manipulation. and in general, it's an outright lie, he hides his head in the sand, pretending that all this does not concern him and that it is completely normal for him a practice to which all the people who come in contact with him are more or less used to it, but it is a night practice and it is definitely ivan that 18 days and so on what is this story i don't know what it is about january 18, august 17 i read it, and it was

as if the ministry was interested in what the party discussed with the cabinet of ministers, and it came up with a way to preserve the integrity of the film of the dovzhenka center fund. no, they were interested in how to preserve the integrity, how to preserve in this situation what the organization's reputation, how to preserve its reputation i say thank you podvodna, for this it was definitely necessary to invent another round table, some kind of conference, some kind of miracle again, all this mess up the integrity, uh, the value of the dovzhenko center , it was determined about its creation. the dovzhenko center was created, it is written in black and white that the dovzhenko center company is a national cultural

heritage, so it falls under the legislation on culture and is the responsibility of the minister culture well, now let's look at ivan. now, let's believe , let's return to business interests, that is, the argument and motive is no less than just uh, um, revenge, or some kind of uh, or some kind of struggle, it's just ambition, and whose business interests uh, in your opinion , uh you know, for a very long time, since 2007, the dovzhenko center has been in the field of interests of such a micro-organizer, probably a businessman, igoryatinno

, he was actually the buyer of these 10 buildings, which were held this year, the 10th and 14th buildings at an open auction now many people are talking about the fact that yarmak transferred the center of the left -hander well, because lyovochkin kept a bank in which, er, it means that there was a turnover during the sale and so on, i don't see any lyovochkin there, to be honest, but you were not interested. buildings became his property, because of the remaining four of the remaining buildings that were not sold to him in the seventh year, two were long-term leases from his company, that is, in fact, almost the entire site, almost the entire dovzhenko center, except for the central building, was either his private property or under his lease and well

it is definitely clear for what purpose to develop this plot in the 11th year, in the 10th year, when kulynyak signed the restructuring order, it was meant that his collection should be transported to the dovzhenka film studio, in fact, this is also one of the options, which is called so that free the central building from the collection in the premises of the central building, because the stick in the eye is definitely the collection, this is the main problem. how to get through the collection? it is impossible not to deny the logic, it was the ruler at that time, because the central building of the dovzhenko center in the 10th year was, as it were, occupied only by 20 percent, maybe the rest of the sawdust - 80%

was idle, it was abandoned premises and one of the reasons why er, in the course of the reform, we began to inhabit these squares by creating a museum, a cinema, a theater , a cafe, a lobby, and so on. the idea was that we should populate this area, because at any moment this square could be alienated. really, er, the ministry had a logic, why the institution should occupy premises by 20% only when you can move it to another place and use this premises for a different purpose, but now it this logic is debunked because the center has completely sheathed its premises already after the 17th year and will begin to go beyond its own boundaries to consider neighboring buildings that were in the lease and we were waiting for them to return from the lease in order to place a company phone there, yes, you are the sellers

of 10 buildings, in the 15th year of the 15th year of oleksiy baranov, who proved the interview. i read where he will repeat what he told me spoke at the negotiations, which i am very pleased with i don't want to be in hm, having refused to meet him many times, but still, he is our neighbor , forced, it's not our choice. he was the owner, the new owner of these sold premises, and it seems to me that the interest that ihor has shown you is not in the rest of the buildings since the sale. ten buildings are missing and now, to be honest, i can't find a rational explanation for who is interested in essentially liquidating the institution with the aim of freeing the central building, because i have, to be honest

, such a suspicion creeping in that it is absolutely not it is excluded that mr. sushko or the same kudarchuk are engaged in this. they may now have realized themselves as outstanding businessmen, because the building occupants can now be sold for nothing, and when doshkino claims that they accuse olenka honcharuk of the inefficiency of the use of state property, they claim that the buildings are in such a technical condition that this is overestimated, their value is excessive, so that they are overestimated from excess value, this only shows that to me the state cinema is interested in reducing their value, paradoxically, although as a state authority, they should be interested in the capitalization of their own property, i.e. in

investing additional funds, which is what we have been doing and definitely with the fact that, for example, the dovzhenko center has invested uah 20 million in repairs over 5 years, definitely the value of our building has grown in proportion to its previous estimated value from "there was a subway in this area, which was not there until the 10th year and so on, that is, there are objective reasons that in fact this is land. well, in fact, the golden land is practically in the center of the city and the territory, so actually. the paradox is that where is the cinema, instead of uh, they care to hmm, how to say it, to approve such a policy? yes, with the capitalization of state property , that is, an increase in its value, they claim that this value is overestimated, it's just