Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Culture

"Agent sentenced to 8 years for two murders: film 'Slava' reconstructs trial that convicted KGB — but didn't imprison its leaders"

Director Denis Soboliev has completed a feature film about a 1962 trial in which the perpetrator of Stepan Bandera's murder received a shorter sentence than those typically imposed in most modern criminal cases — because the court recognized Moscow as the real culprit.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 25, 2026 · 3 min read

"Agent sentenced to 8 years for two murders: film 'Slava' reconstructs trial that convicted KGB — but didn't imprison its leaders"

Ukraine's State Film Agency announced the completion of the full-length feature film «Slava» directed by Denys Soboliev. The creative team has already presented the official poster. The exact release date has not yet been announced — the team announced a "countdown."

What the film reconstructs

The events of the film unfold in 1962 in the German city of Karlsruhe. In the dock is Bohdan Stashynsky, a KGB agent and native of Lviv region, recruited by Soviet secret services in his youth after a chance detention: the choice was simple then — prison or cooperation.

By 1959, he had managed to kill two people. In 1957 — publicist and OUN activist Lev Rebet in Munich, in 1959 — OUN leader Stepan Bandera in the same city. Both times he used a special KGB weapon: a metal cylinder charged with cyanide gas that was sprayed in the victim's face and imitated a heart attack — without visible signs of violence. The device was specifically designed to make the murder look like natural death.

«This dramatic story is a mirror of our present day: the world changes, but the enemy and his cynical methods remain unchanged».

— Creative team of the film «Slava»

The scheme revealed by the court

Stashynsky acted on the direct orders of then-KGB chief Alexander Shelepin. After "successfully" completing his tasks, he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner in the USSR. The truth came out only in 1961: after the death of his newborn child, Stashynsky was given permission to travel to East Berlin — and three hours before the construction of the Berlin Wall began, he fled with his wife to the West, where he surrendered to police and confessed to two murders.

At the trial in Karlsruhe, the court made a precedent-setting conclusion on October 16, 1962: the true criminal is not the executor, but the state that ordered the killing. Stashynsky received only 8 years in prison — and that for a double murder. OUN activist Yaroslav Stetsko, present at the trial, accused Nikita Khrushchev personally and called for the case to be referred to an international tribunal. This did not happen.

In parallel with the film «Slava», the State Film Agency signed another contract in late 2024 on the Stashynsky theme: the film company «Hansafilm» received almost 24 million hryvnias for a separate project — «Why I Killed Bandera» directed by Taras Rybalchenko. Both films cover the same events, but from different angles.

Why this is not just «historical cinema»

The scheme used by the KGB in 1957–1959 — a weapon without traces, a legend about natural death, an executor with impeccable documents — remained the standard for Soviet and post-Soviet special operations. The cases of Skripal, Litvinenko, and Gongadze fit into the same logic: the state orders, the executor bears minimal responsibility, the customers remain beyond the reach of the court.

  • Stashynsky killed Bandera with poisonous cyanide gas — the death looked like a heart attack
  • The court convicted the USSR as the organizer, but no Soviet official bore personal responsibility
  • Stashynsky himself was released well before his sentence was served — his subsequent fate remains unknown to this day
  • The 1962 precedent — the first case in world practice when a court formally recognized the state as the customer of a political assassination

The question that the film «Slava» raises by the mere fact of its appearance in 2025: can feature film do what the international tribunal did not do in 1962 — establish the institutional responsibility of the state-murderer in such a way that it remains in cultural memory, not in archived files? The answer depends on whether the film reaches the international market — and whether it finds an audience beyond the Ukrainian diaspora.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026