Blogger and TV host Ida Galich weighed in on Ivleeva’s Telegram post, replying to the claim that Ivleeva had been too harsh. In a measured but pointed response, Galich suggested that the boundaries of friendship should prevent one friend from taking content from another without permission. He clarified that sharing material that belongs to a friend can feel like a betrayal, and that mutual respect is essential even when conversations turn candid or provocative.
Galich expressed a firm stance: he would not consider Ivleeva a close friend again. He explained that loyalty among peers in the media landscape carries responsibilities, and one of the clearest is not to appropriate ideas, stories, or content that originate with someone who is part of your professional circle. He emphasized that trust is earned and maintained through consistent, fair behavior, and once that trust is compromised, rekindling it becomes increasingly unlikely.
In February, Ivleeva released a video discussing her relationship with Galich. In that clip, she admitted that the two were no longer in regular contact. The blogger reflected on the situation, noting that Galich had a tendency to reveal aspects of his life publicly, sometimes sharing personal details on social platforms that could be interpreted as casual disclosures. He suggested that such openness by Ivleeva might contribute to a mismatch in expectations between the two, adding texture to the broader conversation about boundaries and transparency in online life.
Galich described Ivleeva as being less genuine than she had previously appeared, arguing that authenticity is tested most clearly in moments of conflict or disagreement. He asserted that his own approach to sharing experiences was careful and measured, aimed at conveying genuine feelings without sensationalism. If he wished to pursue a dramatic gesture, he believed he would focus on topics that were widely discussed and resonant across Moscow for an extended period. He also observed that, in many instances, people influence conversations differently when they see a public figure involved. He stressed that he often chooses not to engage in repeat cycles of such topics, reserving commentary for what truly matters to his audience and his own experiences.
Beyond the personal rift, Galich commented on the broader reception of the dispute. He admitted disappointment with Ivleeva’s communication style in the video, but he argued that the public’s attention has a tendency to shift quickly away from private feuds, particularly within the fast-moving media environment. He noted that audiences are often more interested in entertainment value and trending topics than in the specifics of a quarrel between two well-known personalities. Consequently, he believed the crowd would likely move on, focusing on newer content rather than dwelling on the disagreement between him and Ivleeva. In his view, the real story remained the evolving nature of online relationships and how creators manage boundaries when their careers intersect in public spaces. He called for a balanced perspective, urging viewers to consider context, intent, and the impact of public statements before drawing definitive judgments about sincerity or motives.