Natalya Sturm spoke openly about her family rift in a conversation with the YouTube channel PROlife, revealing that she no longer communicates with her son, Arseny. The interview offered a rare glimpse into a high-profile split and the long road that follows when a parent and child become estranged. Sturm described the emotional distance as something she hopes will gradually soften as Arseny grows and seeks a path toward reconciliation. Arseny is now 20 years old, and Sturm said that the tension between them stems largely from the aftermath of her divorce from businessman Igor Pavlov. According to Sturm, there was a moment when she believed that Arseny would be better off with his father because she felt he could not manage the situation on his own. The sentiment underscores the complexity many families face when separation and parenting responsibilities collide with a young adult’s needs and identity.
Sturm painted a vivid picture of the household dynamics that accompanied the marriage, noting she once relied on a large support network to manage daily life. She explained that the presence of a cook, a maid, a gardener, and several instructors created a structured, perhaps even shielded, environment for Arseny over many years. Among the tutors was an English teacher, and Sturm mentioned that a priest also played a role in shaping Arseny’s worldview and language learning. She described the priest as someone who carried a sense of sanctity and influence that extended into the boy’s education, highlighting how varied influences can converge in a single upbringing. The singer suggested that these layers of guidance left a lasting imprint on Arseny’s psyche, complicating the father’s approach to parenting and education.
According to Sturm, Arseny was not inherently quarrelsome and remained a good boy, yet his father reportedly discouraged his studies in significant ways. Sturm attributed much of the friction to Pavlov and argued that his influence, intentional or not, shaped the boy in directions that the mother did not fully endorse. The conversation touched on the heart of many family separations, where differing parenting philosophies and lifestyle choices collide, sometimes leaving lasting emotional repercussions. Sturm recalled a moment of stark prophecy about the future: she joked that Pavlov might end up carrying Arseny to his graduation rather than watching him thrive independently. The remark underscored the perceived power imbalances and the weight of parental involvement in a child’s milestones, even years after a separation has taken place.
The interview also offered a retrospective lens on the broader themes of connection and distance within families. Sturm indicated that memories of the past are overshadowed by present realities and that reconciliation remains a possibility that both sides could pursue when the time feels right. While she did not present a step-by-step plan, the emphasis on longing for resolution reflects a universal desire for repair that transcends celebrity status. The discussion suggested that healing, if it happens, would require patience, empathy, and a willingness to acknowledge each other’s experiences and boundaries. In reflecting on the situation, Sturm hinted at lessons learned about the impact of divorce on children and the long arc of forgiveness and understanding that families often navigate long after the initial split. This narrative, while personal, resonates with many who have watched family dynamics evolve under public scrutiny and the pressure that external judgment can exert on private matters.