An ongoing defamation dispute centers on Vitaly Borodin and actor Danila Kozlovsky, with Borodin choosing to suspend ruble payments for the moment as the legal process unfolds. The decision to withhold funds is framed as a strategic pause tied to the completion of formal procedures by all authorities involved, and Borodin stresses that a thorough review by officials is essential before any financial action is taken. He also favors postponing the forthcoming meeting, explaining that delay would grant more time for careful consideration and proper preparation on all sides.
Borodin notes a gap in representation at a recent session, observing that no one from his side was present due to lawyers being away on business trips in other cities. He asserts that moving forward with a ruling without their input would amount to an encroachment on human rights, warning that if the outcome appears preordained, an appeal will be filed, the next higher hearing will be prepared for, and the case will be pursued until resolution.
The history between the two figures includes Kozlovsky initiating two defamation claims against Borodin, with a court decision finally taking up the case on the third attempt after careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented. This sequence underscores the persistence of both parties as the legal process moved through multiple stages before a ruling was reached.
In mid-April, Borodin remarked that following the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Kozlovsky spent time abroad in the United States before returning to Russia, oscillating between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Amid the broader tensions, Kozlovsky informed the prosecutor’s office of plans to perform in theaters in St. Petersburg, signaling a continued professional activity despite the dispute and the international attention surrounding the case.
Kozlovsky responded by clarifying that he does not hold a second citizenship and that international travel to the United States would be limited to visiting his child. He refuted Borodin’s claim that he had criticized the Russian government, reiterating that his movements abroad were for personal reasons rather than political statements. This clarification highlights the actor’s intent to separate personal matters from public political discourse during an already charged period.
On September 13, there was a symbolic move in which Kozlovsky sued Borodin for a nominal one ruble, a common legal tactic used to establish accountability and principle rather than to obtain financial gain. The action emphasizes the broader aim of asserting responsibility within the dispute and ensuring that the legal process remains formal and transparent, even when the amounts involved are minimal, reflecting a desire to set a clear judicial precedent.
The individual who damaged the set of Princess Turandot offered further explanation of his conduct, situating the act within the context of the larger disagreement. He described his motivations and defended his actions, presenting a nuanced argument that ties specific incidents to the overall dispute and the broader dialogue about accountability and artistic integrity in high-profile productions. This part of the case adds layers to how public figures navigate legal challenges while maintaining professional engagements and artistic commitments.