Glyuk’oza Relaunch and a Controversial Public Image
Producer Maxim Fadeev announced plans to revive the Glyuk’oza project in its original format, without the involvement of singer Natalia Ionova. Fadeev shared this update on his Instagram page, a platform he uses to communicate with fans and followers. The move signals a shift back to the project’s early concept and presentation, aligning with Fadeev’s assessment of Ionova’s recent public image.
According to Fadeev, Ionova’s recent musical material and her participation in high-profile public events have undermined the project’s core concept. He cited Ionova’s appearance at what was described as a controversial event organized by blogger Anastasia Ivleeva as an example. Fadeev suggested that Ionova’s stance and style had diverged from the image originally associated with Glyuk’oza, which was once conceived for a younger audience and not as a solo act under a stage name.
Fadeev also stated that Glyuk’oza was intended as a group name rather than a solitary artist’s alias. He implied that Ionova’s current artistic direction no longer fits the project’s branding and publicly expressed a desire to distance himself from Ionova’s path as a musician. The statement underscored a clear separation between the former collaborative model and the planned reintroduction of Glyuk’oza as a renewed project.
Alongside these remarks, Fadeev released a teaser for the first track of the new Glyuk’oza release, titled “Mice,” to give audiences a preview of what the reimagined project might sound like and to generate excitement for the relaunch.
Separately, Nastya Ivleeva was at the center of a highly discussed party titled “Almost Naked,” held on December 20 at the Mutabor club. The event’s dress code required attendees to arrive nearly without clothing, which sparked substantial public debate about taste, propriety, and the boundaries of social media-fueled notoriety.
Critics and commentators weighed in on Ivleeva and several participants, some of whom issued apologies for the event’s concept and execution. Ivleeva herself publicly addressed the backlash, asking for a second chance from Russian audiences. A number of other prominent attendees also issued apologies, and a public figure, Ramzan Kadyrov, invited those who attended to consider additional support by presenting a path to service in special forces education—a move that drew further attention to the incident and its broader cultural implications.
Earlier reports noted that certain New Year’s publications by Ivleeva and participants in the Krasnodar region were restricted or excluded, signaling ongoing policy and reputational considerations for those involved in the controversy. The episode highlighted how high-profile figures manage public perception amid evolving standards for media appearances and fan expectations.
Observers note that Fadeev’s decision to revive Glyuk’oza in its original form reflects a broader interest in preserving a legacy project while adapting its presentation for contemporary audiences. The situation illustrates the precarious balance between artistic reinvention and the responsibilities that come with public visibility in the digital era. The evolving narrative around Glyuk’oza, Ionova, Ivleeva, and related public figures continues to unfold as new music and public appearances shape how fans perceive this era of the project and its future trajectory. Attribution: media coverage and official statements from public figures.