In a candid conversation with Yuri Dud, Yana Troyanova, known for her role in the TV series Olga, reflected on the factors that shaped her split from director Vasily Sigarev. The actress spoke openly about the underpinnings of their breakup, offering a glimpse into how personal choices and evolving priorities can alter a long-standing partnership.
Troyanova explained that a turning point came when she chose to stop drinking alcohol. She described this shift as a line of departure for the couple, noting that their bond began to drift once her own relationship with alcohol ended. In her view, the two had once functioned as a pair who drank together, and stopping brought a noticeable change in their dynamic. This moment, she suggested, highlighted differences in how they approached life and companionship after that point.
According to her account, Sigarev faced a personal sacrifice after she discontinued drinking. The decision created a gap that neither could fully bridge, and it became clear that they were no longer aligned on the same wavelength. The divergence did not happen overnight but unfolded over a period, indicating a gradual redefinition of values and daily life that left the couple unable to maintain their previous closeness.
Troyanova emphasized that the breakup did not carry acrimony. Instead, it was the result of diverging paths that simply did not converge anymore. The actress noted that the disagreement emerged years before Sigarev’s death and that the two had continued living under the same roof for more than a year separate from their romantic bond. The living arrangement reflected a practical arrangement rather than a renewed romance, underscoring the complexity of ending a partnership while remaining in the same space.
From the director’s perspective, their relationship spanned from 2013 to 2020. Sigarev described the breakup as initiated by Troyanova, while Troyanova offered her own recollection of the break as a natural consequence of shifting emotional currents. He added that after the separation he sought help from a psychiatrist, an acknowledgement of the emotional toll the split took on him. The exchange between the two reflects a nuanced portrait of two artists navigating love, career, and personal evolution in a shared life that eventually needed its own course correction. The dialogue with Dud adds another layer to the narrative, illustrating how public figures often reconcile private experiences with public interest and scrutiny. In this account, the focus remains on personal growth, mutual respect, and the evolving nature of relationships among creative professionals who balance demanding careers with intimate life decisions. The dialogue also underscores the complexity of truth in shared history, where each side can hold a distinct memory of the same events while striving for a respectful, forward-facing understanding. Overall, the story presented is less about fault and more about human change, the pressures of creative partnership, and the sometimes brittle line between togetherness and independence in a life devoted to art. The exchange with Yuri Dud continues to serve as a platform where two influential figures articulate how their relationship transformed under personal change and the passage of time, offering a candid look at love, self-definition, and the cost of staying connected when paths diverge.