Following a leadership change, a large number of staff at the Russian Army Theatre were let go, a development that Life reports based on its sources. The layoffs drew attention because they touched a wide cross-section of the company, from performers and stage technicians to economists and wardrobe specialists. In total, 63 employees left the theater under different circumstances, with 29 choosing to depart voluntarily, 32 facing termination of their employment contracts, one leaving by mutual agreement, and a single individual drafted into military service. The workforce shakeup occurred after Milena Avimskaya assumed the role of director, signaling a new era for the troupe and its operations.
Among the dismissed individuals were two renowned artists recognized as people’s artists, Alexander Dick and Nikolai Lazarev. The terminations prompted discussions about the nature of worker exit conditions and the protections available for long-serving staff. Former actress Ksenia Taran, who previously worked with the theater, suggested that Dick and Lazarev might have been pressured into signing voluntary resignations, arguing that employees with more than three decades of service should not be bound by fixed-term contracts. This perspective highlights concerns about how leadership changes intersect with employment agreements and veteran performers’ rights.
Earlier in July, Shot reported a separate wave of dismissals at the same theatre, noting that 15 artists had left in what was described as a mass and unexpected move. The artists involved indicated they believed the departures were carried out in violation of legal standards and expressed their intention to pursue reinstatement through the courts. In response, Alexander Lazarev, the chief director of the Central Academic Theatre of the Russian Army, clarified that the yearlong contracts with those artists had simply not been renewed, implying a strategic shift rather than a punitive action. The distinction between a renewal and a non-renewal of contracts has been a focal point in discussions about fairness and compliance with employment laws in state theaters.
In related cultural developments, a separate note mentioned Urgant’s performance at a music festival in St. Petersburg being canceled. This cancellation added to a broader pattern of changes affecting performances and appearances linked to the theatre sphere and associated cultural institutions, underscoring the volatility that can accompany organizational transitions in the arts sector. Observers continue to track the implications for morale, creative output, and the long-term artistic direction of the Russian Army Theatre as it adapts to new leadership and potentially altered strategic priorities.
Overall, the situation at the Russian Army Theatre reflects the complex balance between administrative restructuring and the rights of performers and technical staff. As the theatre navigates this period of change, questions about contract status, protections for long-serving workers, and the mechanisms by which leadership decisions are communicated and implemented remain central. Stakeholders prepare for a sequence of negotiations, potential court proceedings, and ongoing indicators of how the company will sustain its artistic mission while integrating new leadership and approaches to staff management. The coming months are expected to reveal how these adjustments affect repertoire, rehearsal processes, and the theatre’s position within the broader Russian and international performing arts community, particularly as audiences and critics assess the impact of staffing changes on performances and institutional trust. Life’s reporting continues to provide updates on the evolving situation, offering a lens into the human dimensions behind the headlines and the practical realities faced by both the theatre’s administration and its artistic personnel.