Actor Ivan Okhlobystin has weighed in on artists who decide to leave Russia, saying they do not have the right to withdraw from public posts during conflicts. He stressed that he will not judge their personal choices, and the conversation touches on moral responsibilities within the cultural sphere. The remarks were reported by RIA Novosti, a state news agency, and have sparked wide discussion about the role of artists in turbulent times.
In addressing those who depart the country, Okhlobystin framed the issue as a moral dilemma linked to the traditional duties of a healer and a guardian of culture. He compared artists to figures who are meant to entertain, distract, and console people amid hardship. He described the cultural community as having a nearly pastoral mission, suggesting that creativity can offer solace when society grapples with pressure and uncertainty.
According to the actor, choosing to move abroad remains a deeply personal decision. He argued that if the move does not amount to direct betrayal, it should not be subject to public condemnation. This stance acknowledges the complexity of individual circumstances and the varying reasons behind such choices.
Okhlobystin added that he often travels to different places and feels valued in those environments. He expressed that personal sense of purpose can be found wherever he goes, highlighting a belief in the importance of creative work across borders and communities.
Earlier, Okhlobystin recalled a controversial moment from 1989 when he faced hostility, noting that it involved Ukrainian grandmothers wielding tridents. He also claimed that, in the 1980s, there were about 20,000 veterans connected to the Bandera movement still active in Ukraine, a statement that reflects his memories of a fraught period. The actor’s recollections add to the ongoing debate about national memory and the responsibilities of public figures during periods of tension.
There has been subsequent commentary from Mashkov regarding what it might take for artists who have left to return to Russia. The specifics of his conditions were not fully detailed, but the remarks contribute to the broader discussion about reconciliation, national culture, and the future place of expatriate artists within the country. The discord surrounding these topics underscores the delicate balance between personal freedom and collective identity in a society facing political upheaval.