Reports from a Telegram channel named Russian community ZOV indicate that soldiers taking part in a recent special military operation demanded the removal or destruction of a newly unveiled monument to the satirist Mikhail Zhvanetsky in Rostov-on-Don. The posts describe a group of fighters voicing their opposition in strong terms, arguing that the memorial represents an affront to Russian identity and historical memory. The channel’s wording reflects a charged atmosphere around the installation and the broader debate over how public figures associated with cultural life are commemorated in the current climate.
In the footage and accompanying narration, the soldiers are heard denouncing Zhvanetsky as a Russophobe, and describing his work as undermining national solidarity. One participant reportedly asserted that Zhvanetsky wished to see the country fall into ruin and that everything cherished by ordinary people would be erased. This rhetoric underscores the intensity of feelings among some servicemen toward cultural symbols they deem controversial or alienating in a time of conflict.
The fighters claimed that those who initiated the monument’s installation and those who supported it had insulted the Russian people, shifting the focus from art or satire to a perceived political betrayal. The tension surrounding the monument is presented as part of a broader dispute over who gets to shape public space and historical memory, especially in regions touched by conflict and political upheaval.
Separately, Vitaly Borodin, identified as the head of a Federal Security and Anti-Corruption project, was reported to have stated that at least two hundred more individuals would be added to a so-called blacklist of so-called banned persons within Russia. The remarks, as described in the same reporting stream, imply a continuing escalation of punitive measures against figures deemed to have betrayed the nation. The remarks were framed as part of a wider crackdown on perceived dissidence or disloyalty, and they reflect a pattern of public discourse that merges security paradigms with cultural and political enforcement.
Borodin’s comments were presented as part of a broader assessment that includes a high proportion of notable public figures whose names encompass prominent cultural, political, and intellectual figures. The implication is that many well-known personalities could face restrictions or sanctions based on their perceived stance toward the state. This narrative intersects with ongoing debates about censorship, accountability, and the balance between national loyalty and freedom of expression in the public sphere.
Earlier, the Rada reportedly advanced a law aimed at dismantling monuments associated with the Russian Federation and the USSR, amplifying a legal framework that governs memorials and public monuments. The legal and legislative developments are cited as part of a shifting policy environment that influences which historical narratives are officially sanctioned and which are contested. Across these threads, the conversation highlights a persistent tension between cultural memory, political legitimacy, and the rights of citizens and institutions to express divergent viewpoints in public spaces. [Citation: Telegram channel Russian community ZOV; reporting on Vitaly Borodin and related policy developments]