Russia’s return to the Venice Biennale has triggered backlash and a threat to pull E.U. funding. Meduza explains how the forum was designed for soft power from the start.
For the first time since the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia plans to reopen its national pavilion at the Venice Biennale. The Kremlin’s delegate for international cultural cooperation, Mikhail Shvydkov, confirmed to ARTNews that Russia will put on an exhibition starting in May for the 2026 event. Shvydov claimed that Russia “never left” the Biennale, despite its decision to rent out its pavilion instead of organizing national exhibitions. While the Biennale’s organizers never formally banned Moscow’s participation, critics argue that Russia’s return to Venice would be impossible without their consent. And the European Union is now threatening to pull funding. Meduza examines the growing controversy surrounding the Russian Pavilion’s forthcoming project, and explains why the Biennale remains a platform for state soft power by design.
Russia claims it ‘never left’ the Biennale. That’s not quite true.
Russia hasn’t taken part in the Venice Biennale’s art or architecture festivals since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Pavilion, constructed in 1914 by architect Alexey Shchusev — who would go on to design the Lenin Mausoleum — was long in need of restoration. But Russia has only held one modest exhibition there (dedicated to the building itself) since renovating the space from 2019 to 2021.
During the 2022 Art Biennale, the Russian Pavilion was closed. Russian artists Kirill Savchenkov and Alexandra Sukharea withdrew from that year’s festival in protest of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with the exhibition’s Lithuanian curator, Raimundas Malašauskas. Russia skipped the 2023 Architecture Biennale, as well.
During the 2024 art festival, Russia rented out its pavilion to Bolivia. And in 2025, the pavilion hosted a project by the prominent British architect Thomas Heatherwick. The Ukrainian Pavilion’s co-curator, Michał Murawski, staged a protest at the Russian Pavilion, accusing the Biennale and Heatherwick of collaborating with Russia.
Nevertheless, ahead of the 2026 festival, the Kremlin’s delegate for international cultural cooperation, former Culture Minister Mikhail Shvydkov, insisted that Russia “never left the Venice Biennale.”
This year’s art festival is scheduled to run from May 9 until November 22. Whether the Russian Pavilion will be open for the entire duration remains unclear. The format of Russia’s project is unusual for the Biennale: a series of sound performances created by 38 different artists titled “The Tree is Rooted in the Sky.” Its pre-opening for press and professionals is scheduled for May 6–8.
You’re currently reading Meduza, the world’s largest independent Russian news outlet. Every day, we bring you essential coverage from Russia and beyond. Explore our reporting here and follow us wherever you get your news.
The Gnessin Russian Academy of Music coordinated the project, and it doesn’t have a public curator as such. The Russian Pavilion’s commissioner, responsible for overseeing the entire exhibition, is Anastasiia Karneeva, the co-founder of the production and exhibition company Smart Art and the daughter of Nikolai Volobuev, the deputy director of the state conglomerate Rostec. She has held this position since 2021.
Pushback and a promised Pussy Riot protest
The news of Russia reopening its pavilion at the Biennale was met with alarm and condemnation. “There are bound to be intelligent people who will defend this initiative in the name of tolerance and world peace,” film critic Zinaida Pronchenko wrote on Telegram.
Meanwhile, many in the art world found the project’s format confusing: exhibitions at national pavilions usually feature one or two artists, or a small group — not 38 creatives. “A group of 50 people doesn’t make an artistic statement,” artist Marina Koldobskaya argued in a Facebook post. “In fact, the group was assembled so that no statement could be made — after all, any statement could land you in trouble.”
Kremlin critics have argued that their voices should also be heard at the Biennale. “I think this is a good opportunity for a direct artistic statement against the current Russian government,” gallerist Marat Guelman wrote on Facebook. “We could simply announce an open-air festival across from the Russian Pavilion.”
Pussy Riot activist Nadya Tolokonnikova, a member of the new PACE Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces, has already announced plans to stage a protest in Venice. “Pussy Riot is heading to the Biennale with an alternative, protest message so as not to burn with shame,” she wrote on X. “We want to express unconditional support for Ukraine, victims of Russia’s war crimes, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives.”
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys also chimed in on X. “The decision by [the Biennale] to roll out the red carpet to Russia’s dark cultural diplomacy is abhorrent,” he said.
But the co-curator of the Ukrainian Pavilion, Ksenia Malykh, said she wasn’t really surprised. “I think that everyone who has been involved in international cultural projects for these four years isn’t very surprised, unfortunately,” she said in an interview. “All this time, Russia has been finding ways to infiltrate important venues in one form or another.”
‘La Biennale di Venezia does not decide’
National pavilions at the Venice Biennale belong to their respective governments; they appoint curators and commissioners and manage building operations and renovations themselves. The national project teams are not accountable to the Biennale’s board of directors, much less the exhibition curators, although they remain in dialogue with each other.
“As a general premise, La Biennale di Venezia does not decide on national participation; countries themselves choose whether to take part,” Biennale spokesperson Cristiana Costanzo told ARTNews when asked about the Russian Pavilion’s reopening. However, the Italian Ministry of Culture claimed that the Biennale Foundation allowed Russia to return to the festival despite the government’s opposition.
The Venice Biennale’s president, Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, is a right-wing journalist who once belonged to the youth wing of the neofascist party Italian Social Movement. The Italian Ministry of Culture appointed him to the role in 2024, a year and a half after Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing coalition won Italy’s general election. Before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Buttafuoco openly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin, calling him “the only truly right-wing statesman.” Commenting on Russia’s return to the Biennale, he said the event is “open to everyone.”
Pussy Riot’s Nadya Tolokonnikova objected to this stance. “The Russian pavilion is not an embassy: it is not sovereign territory and does not have diplomatic status,” she argued. “This means that the Italian government, Venice authorities, and the Biennale itself can say no to Russia if they wish.”
On March 9, the European Commission issued a statement condemning the Biennale Foundation’s decision to reinstate Russia’s pavilion and threatening further action, including the possible suspension or termination of an ongoing E.U. grant. Politico also obtained a joint letter signed by the culture ministers of 22 European countries, urging the Biennale to reconsider Russia’s participation.
“[The] Russian Federation remains subject to European and international sanctions, including in the cultural domain, imposed for its violation of international law and Ukraine’s sovereignty,” the letter says. “In this context, granting Russia a prestigious international cultural platform sends a deeply troubling signal.”
A soft power platform by design
The Venice Biennale was founded in 1895, and its current structure is a direct legacy of the 19th century — an era very different from our own. In addition to featuring a major international exhibition (overseen by a board-appointed curator), the Biennale has, since its inception, hosted more compact national exhibitions organized by individual states.
Although the public often views this format as neutral, it encodes a worldview in which cultural achievement is a merit of the state or at least a component of its prestige. Consequently, each new Biennale leads artists, curators, and critics to question whether the national pavilions have become obsolete and ask what, if anything, can be done with this model today.
For example, in 2024, the International Art Exhibition’s curator, Brazilian Adriano Pedrosa, chose the title “Foreigners Everywhere,” focusing on the art of national minorities and diasporas. Notably, the forum’s curator does not control the national exhibitions. However, they usually take into account the concept around which the main project is built.
Following Pedrosa’s lead, several pavilions moved away from projecting an overt sense of unity between art and the state. Instead, their exhibitions gave platforms to those whom the authorities and mainstream culture have silenced (a prime example being the solo exhibition by Indigenous American artist Jeffrey Gibson at the United States Pavilion).
Be that as it may, as long as the national pavilions at the Biennale exist, the right-wing conservative view of culture as a showcase for state policy will persist.
For instance, while the 2024 U.S. exhibition was one of the most progressive (and anti-imperialist) at the Biennale, the selection criteria for artists changed dramatically after Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The State Department began requiring applicants to submit project proposals that reflect “American values” and promote the concept of “American exceptionalism.”
In all likelihood, Russia will also use the Venice Biennale to advance its narratives. Ultimately, if the Kremlin manages to leverage its pavilion to normalize its policies and reassert its role as the self-appointed leader of the “Global South,” this will come as no surprise. After all, such an opportunity is inherent in the Biennale’s archaic structure.
Anton Khitrov
Translated by Eilish Hart