The 2 May 2014 Odesa clashes were being used as a foundational myth by Russian propaganda from the beginning of the war and were presented as peaceful pro-Russian activists attacked and burned to death. In reality, the pro-Russian activists behaved like trained provocateurs and escalated the violence from the very beginning. This video presents events that happened long before the tragic fire. At 16:00, a white Ford Transit minibus AN6852EO entered Greek Square from the side of Ekaterininskaya Street. According to eyewitnesses, the minibus was driven by an activist of the so-called ‘mobile group’ under the Russian ‘People's Druzhina’ of Kulikov Field, nicknamed ‘Botsman’ (Vitaliy Budko). He was armed with an AKS-74U assault rifle. Botsman, hiding behind a police line, repeatedly fired single shots in the direction of the Euromaidan activists. He was not the only shooter on that side. At that moment, three people on the pro-Ukrainian side were killed. Shortly after Budko left undisturbed with the weapon, accompanied by... head of local police Dmitry Fuchedzhi. Soon after both have escaped to Russia.

More video evidence available on 2mayodessa.org.

Key fragment of ECHR 072 (2025) ruling from 13 March 2025:

The Court's role was to examine the applicants' complaints purely in relation to Ukraine's international responsibility under the Convention, regardless of the fact that some wrongdoings were attributable to specific former Ukrainian local officials who in the meantime had fled to the Russian Federation, had become Russian citizens and had even built a career there against the background of the Russian large-scale military invasion of Ukraine. The Court considered that disinformation and propaganda from Russia had had its part to play in the tragic events.

(...) That unjustified wave of violence had been preceded by continued dissemination of aggressive and emotional disinformation and propaganda messages about the new Ukrainian government and Maidan supporters as voiced by Russian authorities and mass media.

(...) The Court also noted that the deputy head of the regional police who had been directly involved in the decision-making process before and during the events and who had fled to Russia afterwards, had, at the very least, been providing support to the anti-Maidan movement in Odesa, and perhaps conspiring with anti-Maidan activists in organising mass disorder.