Adrian Horton: I know you were presenting your previous film, 20 Days in Mariupol, to Western audiences when you started working on this one. What drew you back to the front lines?
Mstyslav Chernov: What brought me back wasn’t really about speaking to audiences. It was more about coming out of Mariupol—we were completely devastated and scarred by what we witnessed. Then we went to Bucha and saw more war crimes. After that, I went to my hometown, Kharkiv, which was being bombed daily, just like Mariupol. So even as we began editing 20 Days in Mariupol, I was already searching for a story that would, in a way, respond to that feeling of devastation and helplessness. I kept seeing Ukraine as a victim of this brutal invasion, and I wanted to tell another story that moved in the opposite direction—one that showed agency, strength, and how Ukrainians are pushing back against the violence.
AH: Was that after Mariupol had already fallen? What was that contrast like for you—moving between the Oscar circuit and filming on the front lines?
MC: That was around the time of the theatrical release in July. It coincided with the releases of Barbie and Oppenheimer, and we were doing dozens of Q&As for the public. It was when the first receptions and red carpet events began. But at the same time, the front line was on fire. Ukraine was in the middle of a counteroffensive. I would go from these beautiful, peaceful cities in the United States, the UK, and Europe back to Ukraine—flying to the border, taking a car, then a train, then another car, and finally ending up in a trench. And in that trench, I entered a completely different world. It felt like another planet, or like stepping 100 years back in time. That collision of two realities—I tried to express it and make sense of it, of how we live in a world where both war and peace, humanity and violence, coexist. So 2000 Meters to Andriivka naturally became a film about distances—not just about the reality of war or the humanity of the people pinned down in foxholes, but also about the distance between Europe and Ukraine, and between Ukrainian society and those in the trenches. I hope that comes across.
AH: How does that distance feel now, after making this film, especially between Ukrainian society and the front lines? Have you seen it grow or shrink?
MC: Since the beginning of 2025, many people in Ukraine—especially those on the front lines, but also civilians who are increasingly targeted by missiles and drones—have felt abandoned by the international community. That shared feeling has brought a lot of people together. It’s something I find amazing about Ukrainians, and about people in general: when we feel distressed or abandoned, we unite and draw strength from each other. The harder things get, the closer people become. I think Russia is making a huge mistake if they believe that bombing Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles will force Ukraine to negotiate on Russia’s terms, or that the Ukrainian public will distance themselves from soldiers or the government. That won’t happen.
Adrian Horton: That makes sense.
Mstyslav Chernov: I also think about the more than 70,000 people in Ukraine who have come to see 2000 Meters to Andriivka in cinemas—which is extraordinary during wartime. I’ve seen how they appreciate the film’s realism and truth, and how it acknowledges the sacrifice and pain that Ukrainian soldiers, civilians, and everyone is enduring—especially at a time when there’s a growing consensus worldwide, even among Ukraine’s allies, that Ukrainians should just give up land. Andriivka would be lost, too. So it’s about understanding how important that place is and what it cost to liberate it.AH: I saw the film at its Sundance premiere in January, and I recall you saying then that you don’t want to be prescriptive. You’re more interested in questions, and that this film is first and foremost a memorial. But I’m wondering, as you show this film to audiences worldwide, do you find yourself wanting to convey a specific message?
MC: My primary aim is to ensure the film is understood correctly. Again, because this isn’t a simple film or a piece of propaganda. It’s about more—it’s about Ukraine, it’s about the war itself, it’s about us at this moment in history, standing on the brink of war. How do we survive such a moment? I want audiences to see how futile and terrible the entire concept of war is, and how we, as humans, shouldn’t do this to ourselves. But at the same time, I want them to see that Ukraine’s self-defense is not futile.
AH: That seems like a crucial distinction.
MC: When I speak to Ukrainian audiences about the film, it’s about memory—honoring those men and their sacrifice. But in international discussions, too many people, too many politicians around the world, are calling this war futile. I couldn’t agree more that war is futile, but self-defense is not.
AH: With something like this, it’s difficult to talk about hope. Things can’t be wrapped up neatly. But where do you find hope looking ahead to 2026?
MC: What I learned from making this film, and one of the reasons I started it, was to find hope myself—to understand that even in the darkest moments, there is light in the people we stand with. Every man we meet in the film brought me that hope. I entered the forest where this entire film takes place feeling hopeless. And I found my hope. I saw trees destroyed by artillery already growing back. I met people who, despite knowing they might lose their friends, their lives, or see the flag they raise fall, continue to do it. They’re still defending their families. That gives me hope that Ukraine, however difficult the path, will endure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov inspired by his perspective on portraying Ukraine
BeginnerLevel Questions
Q Who is Mstyslav Chernov
A He is a Ukrainian journalist filmmaker and war correspondent He is best known for his Oscarwinning documentary 20 Days in Mariupol which chronicles the brutal Russian siege of that city in 2022
Q What does he mean by saying I kept seeing Ukraine portrayed as a victim I wanted to tell a different story
A He means that while Ukraine is indeed a victim of aggression he wanted to move beyond just showing suffering His goal was to show Ukraines agency resilience and active defensethe people fighting back saving each other and defending their homeland not just passively enduring an attack
Q What is his most famous work
A His most famous work is the documentary 20 Days in Mariupol It was a coproduction between The Associated Press and PBSs Frontline and it won the 2024 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film
Q What organization does he work for
A He has been a video journalist for The Associated Press for many years Much of his groundbreaking work from Ukraine has been produced through that role
Advanced Deeper Questions
Q How does 20 Days in Mariupol tell a different story than just victimhood
A While it unflinchingly shows the horrors of war it consistently focuses on the actions of Ukrainian citizens and responders doctors performing miracles under fire volunteers digging survivors from rubble parents protecting children and soldiers defending positions The narrative is about their collective struggle and determination
Q What are the major ethical challenges Chernov has discussed in his war reporting
A He has spoken extensively about the moral weight of documenting atrocities the dilemma of when to film and when to help the responsibility of sharing graphic images to reveal the truth and the psychological toll on journalists bearing witness
Q Why was his teams reporting from Mariupol so critical
