Actress and television presenter Yulia Menshova dismissed rumors about a Telegram channel linked to her name and denied plans to open a women’s mat school. Online chatter had circulated about this project, with some posts claiming there was a verifiable address, while others warned of a dramatic launch. Menshova, who is well known for speaking frankly on social media, clarified that no such venture had begun and that the supposed address could not be found through standard internet searches. She addressed the speculation with humor and clarity, making it clear that she would not lend her name to a project she does not oversee. In a playful aside aimed at critics, she suggested that if anyone seriously tried to damage her good name, she would respond with a bold, tongue‑in‑cheek gesture involving a Panama hat as a symbolic retort. The overall takeaway remains that the rumors are unfounded, and Menshova’s professional focus stays on her ongoing work rather than unverified schemes.
On November 5, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that swearing is part of the Russian language and added that it is a sin, yet no one is free of fault. He argued that raising general cultural standards could gradually reduce the use of profanity over time, emphasizing a path through education, media responsibility, and social behavior. His comments fed into a broader public conversation about how language reflects cultural values and how society can balance expressive freedom with civility. In his view, improving language culture could lessen the reliance on harsh speech without erasing the honest emotional texture that language can convey in everyday life.
On November 12, director Sergei Ursulyak spoke against the gratuitous use of profanity in cinema and theatre. He did not deny that swearing is an integral and highly charged component of language, but he argued that it should be employed with care. Ursulyak emphasized that profanity can contribute to realism and character when used thoughtfully, yet it should not be a default tool for dialogue or effect. He suggested that the occasions when profanity is artistically necessary are rare, but when they arise, they can be powerful and meaningful if handled with discipline.
Ursulyak contended that profanity in art can serve specific artistic objectives, but only when it is truly warranted by the narrative, mood, or character development. He warned against overuse, which he believes can distract audiences and dilute the impact of authentic moments. The director’s stance reflects a cautious approach to language in film and theatre, arguing that writers and performers must weigh the artistic purpose against potential alienation or misinterpretation by viewers. In his view, careful crafting of dialogue can preserve intensity without sacrificing clarity or accessibility.
Earlier, musician Sergei Shnurov described Russian swearing as part of the country’s cultural fabric, contributing to the ongoing dialogue about language and identity in public life. His perspective has become part of a wider chorus that treats rough language not merely as a nuisance but as a resource that can convey social reality and emotional truth. The debate touches on how language is taught, how media portrays speech, and how audiences respond to authenticity in performance. It also raises questions about regional and generational variation in attitudes toward profanity, and how these differences shape creative practice and reception in both national and international contexts.