Galina Stakhanova spoke candidly in an interview with mk.ru about the reality of her pension and the daily choices it forces her to make. She revealed that her monthly pension amounts to approximately 25 thousand rubles. She added that there are no additional bonuses tied to career milestones in her case, and she explained that a recent increase in her pension did not come from the title of People’s Artist, which she does not hold. The conversation touched on how titles and formal recognitions can influence public perception, even when they do not translate into concrete financial support for long-time performers.
During the discussion, Stakhanova clarified a common question she often encounters. People ask whether she considers herself a figure among the people or a celebrated star. She answered with a sense of humility and honesty, stating that she does not carry any formal titles, but she identifies as a craftsman of her art who remains closely connected to the public. She described herself as a people’s artist in spirit, someone who is popular without the trappings of star status in the traditional sense. This distinction reflects a broader conversation about how recognition and compensation intersect for actors who have devoted decades to their craft.
Stakhanova did not mince words about the financial strain her pension imposes. She noted that the pension is barely enough to secure a modest standard of living and that a significant portion of her monthly allowance goes toward medications. She shared that about half of her pension is spent on essential health needs, including medicines for hypertension and cardiovascular support, totaling around 10 thousand rubles every month. This degree of outlay underscores the real-world impact of pension levels on the health and well-being of aging performers, many of whom face ongoing medical requirements as they grow older.
When discussing the sufficiency of her income, she suggested that an amount in the range of 50 to 100 thousand rubles per month would cover basic needs and provide some room for small conveniences. Until that level is reached, she said, there is no room for neglecting work. The practical consequence is that economic constraints push seasoned artists to continue performing or engaging in projects simply to maintain financial stability, even if retirement feels like a distant or unattainable goal. This sentiment captures a broader concern about how long-time entertainers navigate retirement planning in systems with fixed pensions and uneven opportunities for new roles.
She recalled specific daily experiences that reveal the pinch of limited funds. There are moments when family tasks, like grocery shopping, become a reminder of the tight budget. She described how a routine trip to the store could quickly consume a portion of the budget, illustrating the everyday realities behind the headline figures. She also acknowledged that there are occasional freelance performances or shoots that provide a temporary financial cushion. These opportunities, though not plentiful, offer a measure of relief and the chance to contribute to a more secure financial footing in an otherwise challenging landscape.
Throughout the interview, Stakhanova also reflected on the expectations placed on artists and how these expectations intersect with personal finances. She pointed out that while there might be admiration and public affection, financial security often lags behind. Her remarks highlight the enduring issue of pension adequacy for aging performers and the need for systemic support that recognizes the lifelong contributions of artists who helped shape cultural life. The discussion concluded by acknowledging that there was previously another prominent performer who voiced frustration about pension levels, signaling that concerns about financial security among veteran artists are not isolated to one individual but are part of a wider conversation within the community.