(Credit: Jonathan Tichler / Met Opera)

At the start of the War in Ukraine, General Manager Peter Gelb made a proclamation, “We can no longer engage with artists or institutions that support Putin or are supported by him—not until the invasion and killing has been stopped, order has been restored, and restitutions have been made.”

The statement was clear as Gelb immediately stopped his collaboration with the Bolshoi Theatre, which was supposed to co-produce three new productions. Instead, the Met decided to build all three productions, “Aida,” “Lohengrin,” and “Salome,” without the Russian theater.

But what did it mean for artists? That is when the entire statement became incredibly gray. What did it mean to be supported by Putin or to be associated with Putin? The first artist to be taken off the roster was Anna Netrebko, who had made a statement to condemn the war on Feb. 26, 2022. But it was not good enough for Gelb. So he had her withdraw from one contract, a “Turandot” production (though the press release also included “Don Carlo.” Netrebko learned that he was also cancelling “Don Carlo” from press reports) before then unilaterally deciding to “fire her.” Why? Because even though she condemned the war, the soprano noted she was afraid of Putin and therefore refused to denounce him. Netrebko had endorsed Putin in 2012 and had taken a picture with the Novorossiya flag while donating money to the Donetsk Opera House in 2014. That donation, according to the Guardian, “was delivered to the theatre in a sack, in cash. Everyone from the general director to the cleaners were given 3,000 roubles as a one-off payment, said Kovalyova, and the remainder was used to pay for medicines.”

So to that end, what has the Met and Gelb’s public position been with regards to other “Putin-supported artists?” Some Russian artists announced for the season disappeared from the roster without any big press release or pomp and circumstance. And then Hibla Gerzmava was “fired” in a Liudmyla Monastyrska interview as a side note. However, it took Gelb two months to remove the soprano from the slate, even though she had been pictured celebrating Putin’s birthday and had endorsed Putin’s invasion of Crimea. Still, there was no press release or proclamation by Gelb. Then there was Ildar Abdrazakov, who was allowed to pause his relationship with the Met even as he was seen throughout the war performing at Putin-sponsored events and eventually endorsed Putin.

But the public outrage that Gelb decried with regards to Netrebko was nowhere to be found with regards to these other artists, and the following season, Gelb’s big statement on Putin-supported artists no longer being welcome quickly started to look shaky and questionable at best as multiple Russian artists still visibly performing in Russia continued to make Metropolitan Opera appearances.

Where the questions begin with Gelb’s actions come down to a statement he made in The Guardian. “We had to immediately sever relations with Putin-backed organizations, which sadly included the Bolshoi. I greatly admire them artistically, but it is Putin who literally signs the contract of my counterpart there and so the decision was clear,” he remarked.

You could argue that artists performing in Russia were upholding their contracts at the Bolshoi Theatre and Mariinsky Theatre because they were ensemble members. But then you would have to justify how they could take bows with Valery Gergiev or perform at theaters like the Bolshoi Theatre, which fired multiple stars for speaking out against the war and which recently installed surveillance tech to monitor its staff for “interest in the war in Ukraine.” Putin also oversaw the change in power at the Bolshoi Theatre. What about the Mariinsky Theatre, which has been under the control of Valery Gergiev for years and which Putin has attended on multiple occasions, and was the reason for the building of the Mariinsky Theatre II? And what of the Zaryadye Hall, which, when the war began, called for the “denazification of Ukraine?”

In an interview with the Guardian, Gelb said that he had to respect Russian artists’ private positions. He said, “Their private positions are theirs to keep private. I have no problem with that. We’re not asking them to fill out questionnaires, or for their loyalty to the Met or to the West. We’re doing none of that, and nor do I think it’s appropriate.” However, is it really a private position to go on a stage that has endorsed Putin’s war? Is it really a private position to perform at theaters that have fired individuals for speaking out? Concerts are public events, and Russian ones are sponsored by the government.

Three years later, the answers to those questions are further complicated by the current global political climate and the rise in autocracies around the world. But they seem a bit simpler at the Met, where Peter Gelb has been clear about his stance on Ukraine and has been to the country to speak of freedom. He is even staging a Ukrainian opera and has the Ukrainian Freedom Orchestra as an important sign of his commitment.

But he has also been on a three-year publicity stunt, berating one soprano at every moment he can, commenting on every move she makes. Whether it’s her debut at the Monte Carlo Opera,  or her return to the United States, or whether she returns to the Royal Opera House. Gelb has repeatedly said how close Netrebko is to the Kremlin and even went as far as to allege that she had contact with it before putting out a third statement. Maybe he’s right, but the reality is that he hasn’t provided any evidence to the fact outside of his statements. All of this has happened while Gelb, and by extension the Met Opera, and Netrebko have engaged in a long-ranging lawsuit with the Russian soprano alleging that the Met Opera discriminated against her on a number of fronts. Gelb, meanwhile, has taken every media opportunity available to him to denounce Netrebko with the zeal of an activist. He did have some crass words for Putin supporter Valery Gergeiv and criticized the Italians for inviting him back for a concert that was eventually canceled, but then again… so did the entire world.

The irony in the Netrebko situation is that most of Europe has already moved on, she has not performed or been in Russia and even in the midst of controversy and protest from activists and some politicians, the Russian soprano is set to return to the Royal Ballet & Opera.

But what of the many artists who are performing in Russia during the 2025-26 season that have been invited to the Metropolitan Opera? Are they complicit in Putin’s Propaganda machine, or are they simply living their lives in peace, making money to survive?

This season alone, Lawrence Brownlee, who stars in two productions at the Met, will be featured in a gala opening night at the Zaryadye Hall, while Elena Stikhina, who will headline “Madama Butterfly” performances, will also be featured in “The Queen of Spades” at the same hall. Igor Golavatenko, who just performed in “The Queen of Spades” last season and will be the headliner in an HD-bound “Eugene Onegin,” has continued to be showcased alongside Valery Gergiev at the Bolshoi Theatre. Maria Barakova, set to appear as Olga in “Eugene Onegin,” also performed at the Zaryadye Hall in a starry “Norma” while also taking a bow alongside Gergiev at the Mariinsky Theatre this past summer. And Kristina Mkhitaryan, set to perform as Micaëla in “Carmen, will be featured in a “Manon” at the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall as well as a recital at the Zaryadye Hall. All these venues have been pro-Putin in action or through statements. Brownlee’s performance gets the most spotlight because it is, after all, an American artist making headlines in Russia and gracing the stage of a state-funded venue. But, can you blame the American tenor for taking that chance when, over the past few years, it has been clear that other artists performing in those very same venues, like Golavatenko and Stikhina, are welcome back time and again to the Met? Ultimately, at this point, it shouldn’t be surprising to see other major Met Opera artists jump at the opportunity as well if they please. And as for Russians going back and forth, why should they care if they perform at a state-funded Russian venue? They aren’t being held to any moral standard by Gelb or the Met at this juncture. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Brownlee’s Russia engagement has been canceled. The point still stands with all the other singers nonetheless.)

While I am not interested in getting any artist fired nor interested in canceling artists, as I believe they have a right to perform and entertain, the spotlight ultimately shines brightest on Gelb’s contradictory actions that don’t provide clear answers to all the questions already brought up. All of this wouldn’t matter so much if not for the fact that Gelb inserts himself into the Netrebko issue every time it comes to the fore. Any article about the soprano will no doubt feature a cameo from the Met Opera director. As Ukrainian artists protested the soprano’s return to the theater in London, Gelb, who is in New York and has nothing to do with that situation outside of the pending lawsuit, made sure to chime in his thoughts. Ultimately, Gelb’s emphasis here and lack of action or statements elsewhere have made the issue seem more like a personal one than a political or artistic one, thus undercutting what value he’s brought in his activism for Ukraine.