no,this is another example of your hypocrisy..
Not really. You may (or may not) remember what happened on the 9th of May in Mariupol. In my opinion, it showed very well that the people of Mariupol, at least a large proportion were not too friendly towards Kyiv and it's troops. That may have changed a bit now after the shelling. Hence, an own goal by the separatists. You may want to argue that it has not yet been proven who actually fired but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the Azov battalion is very unlikely going to shell it's own positions or territory. Especially not when they are already struggling to make friends with a large proportion of the local population. Of course, the separatists will tell us that they do not have any weaponry stationed close enough to Mariupol (and they actually made that statement), but vk.com is full of videos with separatists convoys heading from Donetsk to Mariupol a couple of days ago. Some of the trucks and heavy machinery actually had hand painted letters stating "to Mariupol". It was only a matter of time until they would try to take the city as it is strategically important to them. There is no need to deny that the attack came from the separatist side.
something what kiev been doing for last 10 months on daily basis.
Kyiv has been doing nothing but to defend it's own territory. While i do not agree with the shelling of civilian populated areas, one has to wonder how else they would try to regain their own territory. If there is one side to blame for the deaths of civilians, it can only be the separatist side. It was them who started to take over the cities. Surely, they must have known that Kyiv won't just sit by and watch. If the separatists wouldn't have decided to take up arms, there would have been no need for shelling.
too much lies on both sides and too much propaganda
Exactly. And that it is why it is important to look at it from both sides. We have the luxury to live in countries that do not restrict us to a one-sided media coverage. We have several tools available to us to form an educated opinion on most subjects.
according to prosecutor rapport from ministry of defense of ukraine ,regarding victims of maidan,stated that first victims died from hunter rifles and hundguns,which were not in use by police or berkut.sry..only in polish:
What was in use by Berkut and what not is very difficult if not impossible to proof now. You have to understand that even normal police had to buy a lot of equipment themselves. For example, i have spoken to a police man on the bus back from Odessa to Donetsk when i went to see Shakhtar play Chornomorets. Each bus carried one police man from Donetsk as "liason". I asked him why the police officers in the stadium were holding their batons in their hand instead of having it hang off their belts down their legs. I wondered because it seemed to me that holding the baton gives away quite an aggressive picture and does not have much of a deescalation strategy to it in case it does kick off. he explained that it is most likely that they have not been issued with holders for their batons. He had to purchase his holder privately too. So, while police or Berkut may not have been issued with handguns or riffles, it does not mean that those weapons were not in use.