A video from actor Danila Kozlovsky circulating on his Telegram channel challenges statements made by activist Vitaly Borodin, who has claimed that the actor left Russia. In his reply, Kozlovsky asserts that rumors about his departure are unfounded and stresses his strong ties to his homeland.
Kozlovsky states clearly that he still lives and works in Russia and considers the country his land and his home. He describes his work and personal life as rooted in the Russian landscape, insisting that the rumors about him relocating to another country are misinformation. He also notes that he continues to be active in the Russian theater scene, including performances at the Maly Drama Theater, which contradicts Borodin’s assertion about his emigration after the outset of the SVO. (Source: Kozlovsky’s Telegram channel)
The dispute has escalated beyond a simple rumor. A few days prior, Kozlovsky announced plans to pursue legal action against Borodin, citing Borodin’s appeal to the Prosecutor General’s Office to monitor the actor as part of an article alleging discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The director of the program described Borodin’s actions as an attempt to leverage influence for personal publicity rather than to address legitimate issues, claiming that Borodin uses the legal system to generate ongoing complaints against a well-known public figure. (Source: Kozlovsky’s public statements)
Earlier, Borodin had suggested he was prepared for a potential trial involving Kozlovsky, signaling a broader confrontation between the activist and the actor. The evolving conflict has drawn attention to how public figures navigate accusations and the role of media channels in shaping narratives during tense political moments. (Source: Borodin’s remarks cited in public coverage)
Observers note that the case highlights ongoing tensions between public accountability campaigns and the personal reputations of individuals in the Russian arts community. Supporters of Kozlovsky argue that the actor’s actions reflect a commitment to his homeland and a refusal to abandon professional duties, while supporters of Borodin emphasize the importance of scrutinizing statements made by public figures, especially when they intersect with national matters. The situation remains a focal point for discussions about freedom of speech, media influence, and the responsibilities of celebrities who are part of the national cultural landscape. (Source: public commentary and media coverage)