Olya Polyakova sparked controversy with comments about a “concentration camp,” the TCC, Pugacheva and Russians. We break down the key points from the interview, public reaction and consequences.
Olya Polyakova has given one of the most controversial interviews of her career. In a conversation with Ramina Eshakzai, the singer refused to apologise for a video featuring a Russian artist in Jūrmala, spoke out against dividing people by nationality, defended Alla Pugacheva and Maxim Galkin, sharply criticised Ukraine’s Territorial Recruitment Centres (TCCs), and compared the atmosphere of public pressure in Ukraine to a “concentration camp”. The interview divided the audience, while some excerpts quickly made their way into Russian media as well.
Olya Polyakova’s extensive interview was published on the RAMINA YouTube channel on 10 August. Formally, the conversation covered the artist’s new career stage, her work in the United Kingdom, age, family, Eurovision, the Ukrainian entertainment industry and her plans to enter the international market. However, the news agenda was almost immediately taken over by very different parts of the conversation.
The central tension of the interview became the question of where, during wartime, the boundary lies between an artist’s personal freedom and the responsibility of a public figure toward society.
How the new controversy began
The immediate background to the conversation was the scandal surrounding the Laima Rendezvous Jūrmala 2026 festival in Latvia. In a video published by the organisers, Polyakova appeared alongside Russian performer Sergey Grigoryev-Appolonov, who performs under the name Grey Wiese. After outrage from part of the Ukrainian audience, the video disappeared from the festival’s official pages.
In the interview, Polyakova explained that she had not researched the musician’s biography and saw no reason to suspect a problem because she was attending a festival organised by Laima Vaikule, who publicly supports Ukraine. According to the singer, she also knew that Grigoryev-Appolonov had held a German passport for many years.
Most importantly, Polyakova refused to recognise the episode itself as a mistake.
One of the most revealing statements in the interview was:
“I didn’t do anything wrong.”
The singer said she did not understand why she should publicly repent for casually interacting with someone at an international event.
It was at this point that the conversation stopped being a routine explanation of another entertainment-industry scandal and turned into a debate about the state of Ukrainian society.
“Everything is already like a concentration camp”
Polyakova said that the constant search for “betrayal” forces Ukrainian public figures to fear every word, photograph or action.
The most controversial phrase was:
“Everything is already like a concentration camp.”
In another part of the interview, the artist formulated her position even more sharply:
“Ukraine is no longer a free country.”
Polyakova was speaking about a situation in which, in her view, an artist must constantly check who they are allowed to be photographed with, where they are permitted to perform and what kind of public reaction a new statement may provoke. She compared this mechanism of public condemnation to the Soviet system, in which only one acceptable line of behaviour existed.
This comparison was probably the most serious communication mistake of the interview.
It is entirely possible to criticise excessive public control, cancel culture or harassment on social media. But the term “concentration camp”, in a country where part of the territory is under Russian occupation and where citizens have experienced torture, unlawful detention and killings, carries a completely different historical and emotional weight.
Journalist Vitaly Portnikov drew attention to precisely this point. He stressed that a concentration camp is not a situation in which a public figure is criticised for communicating with Russian artists, but rather isolation, torture, deprivation of liberty and the physical destruction of people.
What Polyakova said about the TCCs
An even more sensitive part of the interview concerned mobilisation.
Polyakova referred to videos circulating online that show force being used during the detention of men. In her view, society is gradually becoming accustomed to such scenes and beginning to treat them as something acceptable.
The artist said that a person may witness violence in the street and choose not to intervene because they do not understand whether the actions are connected to the TCCs or whether they themselves might be harmed. Polyakova saw this as a dangerous erosion of the distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.
In substantive terms, her position here contains two different issues that became mixed together in emotional speech.
The first is the question of specific cases of possible abuse of authority, which can and should indeed be discussed publicly.
The second is the much broader claim that, as a consequence, Ukraine is allegedly ceasing to be a free country.
It was precisely the transition from the first argument to the second that made her words particularly vulnerable to criticism.
Pugacheva, Galkin and the “good Russians”
Another major dispute emerged around Polyakova’s attitude toward Russians who have spoken out against Vladimir Putin’s regime.
The singer formulated a general principle:
“I do not divide people into good and bad based on nationality.”
As examples, she named Alla Pugacheva and Maxim Galkin, who left Russia after the full-scale invasion. Polyakova believes such people should be judged by their actions rather than by their Russian origin or passport.
She also reacted sharply to situations in which Russians who oppose the war are still criticised in Ukraine, arguing that such an approach pushes away potential supporters of the country.
Public reaction here was far more divided than over the “concentration camp” comparison.
Some users supported Polyakova’s basic point: nationality in itself does not determine a person’s moral qualities.
Others argued that the issue is not the ethnic background of Pugacheva, Galkin or any other Russian, but rather Ukraine’s need to distance itself from the Russian cultural space after decades of its dominance.
Music commentator Roman Buturlakin drew another distinction: there is no need to attack Russian celebrities who have left the Russian Federation, but that does not mean Ukraine should treat them with special gratitude either.
And that, perhaps, describes the actual subject of the dispute most precisely.
Public reaction went far beyond ordinary “hate”
After the interview was published, individual excerpts began circulating independently of the two-hour conversation.
Polyakova was accused of using rhetoric similar to Russian information narratives about the “lack of freedom” in Ukraine. Literary critic Kateryna Smachylo also drew attention to the similarity in rhetoric, while publisher Yuliia Slyvka expressed even harsher criticism of the singer.
The comments also included highly emotional responses, including from users who identified themselves as members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. At the same time, there was also an opposing reaction: part of the audience thanked the singer for raising the issues of mobilisation, public fear and the culture of public condemnation — topics that other artists prefer not to discuss.
The dominant public reaction was indeed critical, but the interview also attracted a noticeable amount of support.
Russian media were handed a ready-made quote
The controversy has another consequence that is particularly sensitive for a Ukrainian artist during wartime.
The excerpt about an “unfree Ukraine” and a “concentration camp” was almost immediately picked up by Russian media. RIA Novosti, for example, turned Polyakova’s words into a separate publication.
This does not prove that the singer was deliberately spreading Russian narratives, and certainly does not constitute evidence of any connection between her and Russia.
But from the standpoint of media communication, the problem is obvious: the emotional hyperbole was formulated in such a way that it could be completely removed from the original dispute about online hate and used as an independent political message — “a famous Ukrainian singer says Ukraine is a concentration camp”.
For a public artist of Polyakova’s stature, this represents a serious reputational risk.
What consequences the interview has already had for Polyakova
So far, the consequences are primarily reputational rather than administrative or financial.
The interview transformed a local dispute surrounding one photograph and one festival video into a much broader debate about the artist’s attitude toward Russia, mobilisation, public control and the very model of Ukrainian cultural identity.
Her relationship with social media is also being discussed again. Amid the earlier Jūrmala controversy, Polyakova had already said that she deleted Threads from her phone because of the constant negative reaction, although she later returned to the platform.
At the same time, as of the preparation of this article, there is no confirmation that any of the singer’s concerts have been cancelled, advertising contracts terminated or any official restrictions imposed on her following the interview.
Why Polyakova speaks this way
At this point, facts need to be separated from analysis.
Version one: a defensive reaction after several months of public conflicts
The most convincing explanation can be seen directly in the chronology of events.
Over a relatively short period, Polyakova has gone through several media controversies: disputes over religious symbolism in the video for “Не на часі”, the Jūrmala conflict, the debate about Russians, confrontation with the rules of the National Selection and constant arguments on social media.
That is why the interview looks less like an attempt to explain one specific video with Grey Wiese and more like an accumulated protest against the very need to constantly justify herself.
This helps explain the recurring motif throughout the conversation: “I decide for myself what is right”, “I didn’t do anything wrong”, “why should I apologise?”
This is an interpretation, but it follows directly from the structure of the interview and the preceding sequence of conflicts.
Version two: Polyakova is consciously changing her positioning
In the same interview, the singer speaks extensively about the United Kingdom, cooperation with the British music industry and her attempt to begin an international stage of her career.
Against this background, her argument that people should be judged primarily as individuals rather than by nationality looks like part of a broader worldview and public positioning.
However, there is no basis for claiming that Polyakova is making such statements specifically for the sake of a Western career. It is more accurate simply to say that the two processes are happening at the same time.
Version three: her own experience intensifies her reaction to the issue of violence
In the same interview, Polyakova for the first time named a person who, according to her, brutally beat her during her teenage years. The artist said that after one of the attacks she was hospitalised and contacted law enforcement, but was unable to obtain protection.
It cannot be claimed that this story is the reason for her current position on the TCCs.
However, it is reasonable to suggest that a personal experience of physical violence and helplessness in the face of a stronger person may make the use of force an especially emotional subject for her.
This is a psychologically plausible connection, but Polyakova herself did not make it directly.
Version four: Polyakova underestimated the power of her own hyperbole
And this may be the key problem.
For many years, Polyakova has built her public persona around exaggeration, sharpness, provocation and emotional directness. In entertainment, this style often works in an artist’s favour.
But during wartime, the words “concentration camp”, “unfree country”, the TCCs and Russian artists no longer belong merely to entertainment-industry controversy, but to an extremely sensitive social and political sphere.
What may be perceived on stage as a provocation characteristic of Polyakova becomes a political quote in this kind of conversation.
And that is exactly what has happened to her now.
Why this controversy is more serious for Polyakova than previous ones
Previously, most conflicts surrounding the singer concerned a specific action: a costume, a video, a song, a colleague or a performance.
This time, the dispute concerns her worldview.
Part of the audience heard in the interview a defence of individual freedom and resistance to a culture of public harassment. Another part heard a failure to understand how dramatically the role of the Russian cultural space has changed since the full-scale invasion and how painful comparisons between Ukraine and a concentration camp sound in a country at war.
That is why a conventional explanation along the lines of “I was misunderstood” is unlikely to fully resolve the problem.
Editorial opinion
There are issues in Olya Polyakova’s position that must not be forbidden from public discussion. Cases of unlawful use of force require investigation regardless of who commits them. A culture of total public condemnation can indeed turn social networks into a space where people become afraid of expressing any unpopular opinion. And a person’s origin alone does not make them a supporter of war.
But a persuasive point loses its force when it is expressed through a comparison between modern Ukraine and a “concentration camp”.
Judging by the interview, Polyakova wanted to defend her right to determine the boundaries of what she considers acceptable and to oppose collective condemnation. Instead, one maximally harsh phrase became the central takeaway from a two-hour conversation.
And this is a good example of why, in 2026, it is no longer enough for a public artist simply to say: “this is my opinion”. The larger the audience, the greater the probability that one emotional phrase will begin to exist independently of its author — and be used by people who have no interest in the original context whatsoever.
It is still too early to say that the interview has caused irreversible damage to Polyakova. But it has certainly become a reputational point of risk for her: the question now is whether the artist will try to lower the intensity of the conflict or, on the contrary, make the image of someone who “says what others are afraid to say” part of her new public positioning.
After this interview, the second option already looks entirely plausible.
