In a segment of a Besogon TV program, the director Nikita Mikhalkov leveled strong criticisms at personnel at the Historical Museum in Yekaterinburg, accusing them of trampling Orthodox symbols and disrespecting the Russian Orthodox Church. His remarks centered on the idea that sensitive museum work sometimes falls into the hands of individuals he believes act without proper reverence for sacred symbols.
He singled out a staff member identified as Petr Malkov, describing him as wearing a sweater bearing Hitler’s swastika and suggesting that the wearer takes pride in the image. Mikhalkov claimed the person had openly expressed support for Ukraine, and he circulated a photograph from Malkov’s personal social media accounts to bolster his critique. The former assertion raised questions about the boundaries between personal expression and professional responsibilities in institutions that hold historical artifacts and religious symbols in trust.
In addition, Mikhalkov targeted Vyacheslav Chechenyak, another museum employee, who had described the annexation of the Urals as a form of Russian colonization. The director argued that framing such historical events as colonization reflected a broader narrative that could threaten the unity of the country. His broader concern was that ideas about regional division were being taught or echoed within the cultural sphere, potentially influencing public perception and national cohesion.
During the same discussion, Mikhalkov warned against what he described as a gradual erosion of national unity. He argued that proliferating messages about fragmentation were being introduced into the national consciousness, urging audiences to question the interpretation of Russia’s internal history and its territorial integrity. The conversation touched on the role of cultural institutions in shaping collective memory and the responsibilities of staff when engaging with politically charged topics in public settings.
Earlier in May, Mikhalkov called for the shutdown of the Yeltsin Center over a cartoon that depicted a controversial history of the country. He described the animation as portraying a disturbing mix of filth, abomination, and betrayal, contrasting it with a perceived window of light that he believed could instigate change. The remarks reflected a broader debate over how media representations of history influence public opinion and national sentiment, particularly in the context of institutions dedicated to cultural education and remembrance.
Separately, there were responses from the Bolshoi Theater regarding requests to include screenings of a Nutcracker film, indicating ongoing discussions about programming and the cultural canon within major national venues. The absence of a straightforward resolution highlighted the tension between artistic expression, institutional mission, and audience expectations in a country navigating complex historical narratives.