Vladimir Steklov, a People’s Artist of Russia, spoke with Paragraph about his recent visit to a site in Ukraine tied to a Russian special operation. The veteran actor, known for a career spanning decades, offered his perspective on the realities he encountered during that journey, describing the environment as fraught with danger and unpredictability.
Steklov recounted an episode from the Donbass area, where he said the situation grew tense quickly. He explained that after boarding a vehicle, there was a sudden need for speed, and the driver made a sharp stop after receiving instruction through tactical communications. The incident, he noted, involved a moment when a warning announcement suggested a quick change in plans. He added that moments later, an explosion occurred roughly 50 meters ahead of the vehicle, and he reflected that if the vehicle had not halted when it did, they might have reached the site at a disastrous moment. The recollection left him with the impression that timing and precision can be the difference between danger and safety in such conditions, a sentiment he chose to share to illustrate the volatility of the region he visited.
In his homeland, Steklov faced opposition from factions urging a boycott of performances featuring his participation. He addressed these calls by recalling his experiences during a period of unrest in Kazakhstan, noting that he felt warmly welcomed there. He described the current environment as characterized by nationalist expressions that he believes do not reflect the broader will of the city he visited. In his view, the local population would not align with those nationalist currents, a stance he expressed as part of his broader reflections on how public sentiment shifts in moments of political tension. The actor emphasized that art and culture can traverse divisions, and he conveyed a belief that the audience’s response in Kazakhstan demonstrated a different, more inclusive attitude than some agitators had anticipated.
Throughout the discussion, the artist underscored the distinction between personal experience and public political narratives. He suggested that firsthand encounters in conflict zones reveal layers of complexity that are often obscured by mainstream discourse. By recounting specific flashes of danger and the caution he observed in other contexts, Steklov aimed to convey a sense of the precariousness that accompanies travel to contested regions. He did not claim to speak for institutions or governments, but rather offered an intimate account shaped by years of performing, traveling, and engaging with diverse audiences around the world.
Beyond these episodes, Steklov reflected on the responsibilities that come with fame. He acknowledged the pressure that public figures face when their statements are amplified by media and political actors, and he urged a measured approach to discussing contentious topics. The actor’s emphasis on personal experience, coupled with a call for cautious articulation, pointed to a broader philosophy about art as a bridge across divides rather than a conduit for polarization. In his view, culture has the power to foster dialogue even in times of tension, and he expressed hope that audiences would evaluate performances and commentary with a discerning and open mindset, recognizing the humanity that unites rather than divides.