Culture ministers from Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and Moldova used the opening of the Polish Pavilion in Venice to argue that Russian participation in the Biennale cannot be treated as a neutral cultural matter while Moscow continues its war against Ukraine.
Culture ministers from Ukraine and several neighbouring European states have called on the Venice Biennale not to tolerate Russia’s return to one of the world’s most visible cultural platforms, warning that culture is being used by Moscow to legitimise aggression and imperial narratives.
The appeal was made on 6 May at the opening of the Polish Pavilion, during preview events for the 61st Venice Biennale. The event was attended by ministers, officials, journalists and artists, with the pavilion hall filled to capacity.
Representatives of Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova and Lithuania addressed the audience, each expressing support for Ukraine and setting out objections to Russia’s presence at the Biennale. Their remarks came amid wider controversy over the Russian pavilion’s participation in the 2026 edition, which formally opens on 9 May and runs until 22 November.
Lithuanian Culture Minister Vaida Aleknavičienė said Russia’s war against Ukraine was “not only military aggression, but also a war against cultural memory, identity and continuity”. She argued that culture could not be regarded as neutral when it was being used to support imperial narratives and distort history.
“We must be clear: not all narratives exist on equal terms when some of them are created to legitimise aggression,” she said. “Today we are talking about values. Lithuania takes a clear and principled position. Cultural space cannot be an object of aggression.”
Estonian Culture Minister Heidy Purga also linked the issue to the historical experience of occupation and repression in the region. She said those who had never lived under occupation or systematic repression did so from a position of privilege, and warned that ignorance of oppression did not remove responsibility for complicity.
Purga said such ignorance could create “naive self-confidence” and open the way to the normalisation of imperial violence. She argued that societies should listen first to those who knew war from direct experience and understood the tactics and intentions of the aggressor.
“Aggressors must be isolated, restrained and opposed,” she said. “Imperial forces must be dismantled, not ‘managed’ and preserved.”
Her remarks also addressed the Biennale’s institutional position. Purga said sanctions were “not an option, but an obligation” and must be fully observed. She argued that La Biennale’s position could be interpreted as a concession to the aggressor and a way of bypassing clear commitments within EU arrangements. “Such ambiguity is not neutral. It has consequences,” she said.
The dispute over Russia’s participation has been developing for several months. Russia has not appeared in the same form since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Its return to the 2026 Biennale has prompted objections from Ukraine, several EU member states, artists, cultural organisations and Members of the European Parliament.
In March, European Commission Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen and Commissioner Glenn Micallef said Russian participation should be assessed in the context of EU sanctions and the Union’s response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Their joint statement noted the need for all relevant actors to ensure compliance with EU restrictive measures.
Latvia’s Ministry of Culture had earlier initiated a joint appeal by ministers from 22 countries urging the Biennale to reconsider Russia’s participation. The Latvian ministry statement said Russia’s war had caused serious damage to Ukraine’s cultural life and heritage, including museums, historical sites, monuments and cultural institutions.
The issue has also reached the European Parliament. In March, dozens of MEPs signed a letter calling for EU funding for the Biennale to be suspended over Russia’s planned return. According to The Art Newspaper, the dispute placed €2 million in EU support at risk.
The Biennale’s president, Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, has defended the institution’s position, saying the event is “not a court” and is intended as a forum for dialogue. The Biennale has also said Russia was not specially invited, but that it owns a national pavilion in the Giardini, the historic site of the exhibition’s national presentations.
That distinction has not ended the criticism. Italy’s government has said it does not support Russia’s participation, while also pointing to the institutional autonomy of the Biennale Foundation. The international jury of the Biennale resigned shortly before the opening, amid disputes over Russia and other contested national pavilions.
On 6 May, activists from Pussy Riot and FEMEN staged a protest outside the Russian pavilion, briefly blocking access and denouncing Russia’s presence. The Associated Press reported that the protest reflected wider tensions surrounding the event’s opening days.
For Ukraine and its regional partners, the issue is not limited to artistic exchange. Their position is that a state engaged in a war of aggression cannot be treated as an ordinary cultural participant when culture is itself being used as part of a wider political and historical narrative.
The ministers’ statement in Venice therefore framed Russia’s presence not as a procedural matter, but as a question of accountability, sanctions and the cultural space granted to a state accused of seeking to erase Ukrainian identity and normalise imperial violence.
