Vilnius is considering a legal framework to bar artists who have performed in Russia or Belarus since , when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, from staging concerts within the Lithuanian capital. The proposal, spearheaded by Vilnius Mayor Valdas Benkunskas, seeks to amend the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, effectively granting authorities the power to deny entry to performers deemed to be supporting the Kremlin regime through their continued engagement with Russian and Belarusian cultural markets.
The move follows growing controversy surrounding planned performances by artists who have maintained professional ties with Russia despite the ongoing conflict. Most recently, the scheduled concert of Georgian-Russian rapper Gio Pika in Vilnius on has ignited debate. According to reports, Pika has performed at least seven concerts in Russia since the start of the war, prompting accusations that he is profiting from both European and Russian audiences.
Mayor Benkunskas has publicly expressed his deep disappointment
with the Foreign Ministry’s initial refusal to seek an entry ban for Pika. He argued on Facebook that the artist’s continued performances in Russia represent tacit support for the Kremlin. If he cannot make up his mind, then we should do it for him,
Benkunskas stated, emphasizing the need for decisive action to protect Lithuania’s cultural space.
The controversy extends beyond Pika’s case. In , Lithuania imposed a ten-year entry ban on Russian rapper Alisher Morgenshtern, citing national security risks. This decision followed a concert in Vilnius in where attendees displayed symbols associated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the letter “Z”. Benkunskas previously urged the Foreign Ministry to consider banning Morgenshtern ahead of his concert.
The proposed legal changes aim to address what Benkunskas describes as a lack of an effective mechanism
to safeguard Lithuania’s information and cultural landscape. He believes that relying on event organizers, who are primarily motivated by financial considerations, is insufficient to curb the influence of hostile states’ soft power
. He presented his proposal to the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defense on .
However, the initiative has also faced criticism. Event organizers and cultural figures argue that the government has not provided clear criteria for determining which performers are unwelcome, leading to decisions based on subjective moral judgments rather than established policy. The organizers of Gio Pika’s concert, for example, have defended the artist, stating that he was born in the Ossetia Region, which was occupied by Russia during the war, and cannot be associated with Russia’s political or ideological space
.
The Lithuanian Foreign Ministry has indicated its willingness to consider banning individuals who have visited Crimea following Russia’s 2014 annexation of the peninsula, citing potential legal grounds for denying entry. The ministry stated it would formally request the interior minister to consider a ban on Pika based on these visits.
This debate within Lithuania reflects a broader trend across Europe regarding the role of art and culture in the context of geopolitical conflict. Several countries are grappling with the question of whether to allow artists who maintain ties with Russia to perform, balancing principles of artistic freedom with concerns about supporting a regime engaged in international aggression. The case of Lithuania highlights the challenges of defining and enforcing such boundaries, particularly in the absence of clear legal frameworks.
The proposed legislation represents a significant escalation in Lithuania’s efforts to distance itself from Russian cultural influence. If enacted, it would establish a more proactive and legally defined approach to restricting the entry of artists perceived as sympathetic to the Kremlin, potentially setting a precedent for other European nations facing similar dilemmas. The move underscores Lithuania’s firm stance against Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its commitment to protecting its own national interests and values.
