Kyiv, UkrMedia, 11 August – Ukrainian singer Olya Polyakova has once again found herself at the centre of a scandal. In an interview with Ramina Eskhakhzai, the artist claimed that Ukraine had allegedly ceased to be a free country, compared the social atmosphere to a «concentration camp» and said that Ukrainians were living in a «Soviet-style society». The reason for this emotional reaction was the criticism that followed Polyakova’s appearance at the Laima Rendezvous Jūrmala 2026 festival alongside Russian musician Sergei Grigoriev-Apollonov, known as Grey Wiese. In the video, the artists were walking down a corridor, holding hands, whilst Polyakova herself referred to him as a «good Russian».
Briefly about the main points
- Olya Polyakova described Ukraine as an unfree country and compared the social climate to the «Soviet era».
- The statement came following criticism over a joint video with a Russian artist at the festival in Jūrmala.
- Iryna Fedyshyn reported that 450 vehicles, as well as drones and ammunition, had been handed over to the military.
- The publicly confirmed takings from «Kurgan & Agregat» across several tours and concerts exceed 54 million hryvnias.
- Olya Polyakova also took part in charity fundraisers, but supporting the armed forces does not shield a public figure from criticism.
What exactly did Olya Polyakova say?
In the report published on 10 August An interview with Ramini Eskhakhzai Polyakova claimed that Ukrainian public figures are apparently constantly afraid of saying or doing something wrong.
«It’s as if we’re all in a concentration camp,» said the artist, commenting on the wave of criticism. She went on to add that Ukrainians were, as it were, living in a «Soviet-style society», where society decides with whom artists are allowed to be photographed, socialise or perform.
Polyakova also defended Alla Pugacheva and Maxim Galkin, who left Russia after the outbreak of the full-scale war. In her view, Ukrainians should not alienate Russians who oppose Vladimir Putin’s regime.
However, the main issue is not about a particular artist’s passport. It is the cultural context that has outraged Ukrainians: whilst the war is raging, a representative of the Ukrainian entertainment industry is willingly creating joint content with a Russian, yet blames Ukrainian society itself for the negative reaction.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism
Labelling public reaction as «Soviet-style» is a convenient way of avoiding a discussion about one’s own choices. However, criticism from the audience is not state censorship, a ban on a profession or criminal prosecution.
Polyakova has the right to communicate with whomever she sees fit, to record any videos and to express her opinion. Ukrainians have the same right — not to support the artist, not to buy tickets, not to listen to her music and to publicly judge her actions.
Freedom of speech works both ways. A large audience brings popularity, influence and high fees, but with them comes increased scrutiny of one’s public conduct. This is particularly true during wartime, when Russian culture has been used for decades as a tool to influence Ukraine.
Society is not obliged to remain silent simply because an artist has earned their own money. The source of their earnings does not absolve them of their responsibility towards the audience, thanks to whom that money was earned in the first place.
Iryna Fedyshyn turned her concerts into events attracting 450 cars
Against this backdrop, the example set by Iryna Fedyshyn stands out in particular. In March 2026, the singer revealed that, together with her team and her fans, she had already donated 450 vehicles to the Ukrainian armed forces.
The last 50 vehicles alone, purchased following the «Ukraine Sings Christmas Carols» tour, cost around 13 million hryvnias. The vehicles are sourced abroad, transported to Ukraine, repaired, repainted and prepared for service on the front line.
According to Fedyshyn, her volunteer work began with the purchase of footwear, equipment, walkie-talkies and drones. The first vehicle was purchased using funds raised from the sale of the song «Rozstrilyana Vesna (Bucha)», after which the singer began channelling money raised during her charity tours to support the military.
«Everything we managed to collect, we gave to the Ukrainian Armed Forces,» said Fedyshyn.
This is also show business. However, popularity here serves not only to maintain an artist’s profile, but also to meet the specific needs of the various departments.
«Kurgan & Agregat»: over 54 million hryvnias in major tournaments
Another example is the band «Kurgan & Agregat». The musicians systematically donate the proceeds from their concerts to support the Defence Forces and hold auctions for their audience.
The following results, at the very least, are in the public domain:
- over 14 million hryvnias during the 2024 European tour;
- 19.47 million hryvnias during the tour of Ukraine in 2025;
- 17.59 million hryvnias during the European tour in 2026;
- almost 3.6 million hryvnias during a single concert in Kyiv in June 2026.
In total, these four publicly confirmed fundraising events alone raised over 54 million hryvnias. Part of the money came from auctions and audience members, but tens of millions were also generated from ticket sales, the proceeds of which the team donated to the armed forces.
During their concert in Kyiv in June, the band raised 3.6 million hryvnias, of which 1.65 million came from ticket sales — the band’s own contribution.
One of the band’s founders, Yevhen Volodchenko, is serving in the Ukrainian Defence Forces. Amil and Ramil Nasirov continue to organise charity concerts and provide support for the troops.
Polyakova helped out too — and that’s worth mentioning
It would be untrue to say that Olya Polyakova did not help Ukraine at all. The artist took part in charity concerts, fundraising events for drones and for prosthetics for the wounded.
In 2023, she reported raising 500,000 hryvnias, which were used to purchase two drones for the military. That same year, as an ambassador for the «Nezlamni» centre, Polyakova helped raise 2.5 million hryvnias for bionic prostheses, a significant portion of which was donated by «Azovstal» defender Mykhailo Dianov. The artist has also performed at charity events abroad.
The discussion should therefore not descend into a simplistic dichotomy in which one person is portrayed as having never helped anyone, whilst others are depicted as flawless. Polyakova’s contributions must be taken into account.
But donations do not grant a free pass for any words or actions. Supporting the armed forces does not deprive the audience of the right to question an artist’s cultural values.
There really are all sorts of artists in Ukraine
There are artists who view public attention as pressure and insist on their right not to explain their own decisions. And then there are those who use that very attention, the stage, concerts and their audience to provide systematic support to the armed forces.
Iryna Fedyshyn could tell you just how difficult it is to organise a tour during a war. Instead, her efforts resulted in hundreds of cars. «Kurgan & Agregat» could have kept all the profits for themselves, as they had earned them. Instead, tens of millions of hryvnias were channelled into support for the Defence Forces.
There is no point in making fun of Polyakova’s appearance or trying to outdo her in rudeness — this only undermines legitimate criticism. A simple comparison of her public statements with her actual achievements is far more effective.
Perhaps Russia really is a more comfortable environment for a model of show business in which the performer is entitled to the stage, the money and the applause, whilst society is expected to offer nothing but silent admiration. Ukraine has chosen a different path: here, the performer’s freedom does not preclude the audience’s freedom to respond.
If social responsibility seems like a «Soviet-era concept», the problem may not lie with Ukraine. Perhaps the problem lies in our familiarity with a world where popularity is seen as a privilege without any obligations.
Editor’s note. This article is an opinion piece and contains the editorial team’s evaluative judgements regarding the public statements and actions of the individuals mentioned. The assessments, conclusions, comparisons, hyperbole and critical remarks reflect the editorial team’s subjective position. Factual information is based on open sources, references to which are included in the article. The editorial team is prepared to grant the individuals mentioned the right of reply and to publish their position.
