E.U. Sanctions Hermitage Director Mikhail Piotrovsky Over Russia-Ukraine War Ties
The Council of the European Union has formally sanctioned Mikhail Piotrovsky, the longtime director of the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, placing one of Russia’s most prominent museum leaders under new pressure over the war in Ukraine. Announced on April 23, the measure cites Piotrovsky’s relationship to Vladimir Putin and his public support for Russia’s invasion.
In its statement, the E.U. described Piotrovsky as a close associate of Putin and said he had “actively supported and justified Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.” The sanctions package, which covers more than 100 people and entities, also targets other cultural figures tied to Russia’s occupation policies and its use of cultural institutions in occupied territory.
Piotrovsky has led the Hermitage since 1992, when he succeeded his father, Boris. According to the Hermitage Development Foundation, he met Putin around that period. His academic background is in Arabic studies and archaeology, and he studied at Leningrad State University and the University of Cairo.
The E.U. document goes further, saying Piotrovsky publicly endorsed the war, supported legislation that would allow Ukrainian cultural objects to be absorbed into Russian state museums, and authorized Hermitage excavations in Crimea. Those details place the sanctions squarely at the intersection of culture, state power, and the struggle over heritage in occupied territory.
The broader package also names Sergei Obryvalin, the First Deputy Minister of Culture, who the E.U. said was directly involved in the seizure of Ukrainian cultural property and its reclassification as Russian; Igor Solonin, head of the Mariupol Republican Order of the Badge of Honour Russian Drama Theatre, rebuilt after Russia bombed the Ukrainian theater in 2022; and Andrey Polyakov, who oversaw archaeological excavations in Russian-occupied Crimea.
For the Hermitage, the sanctioning of its director marks a significant escalation. It underscores how museums and cultural administrators have become entangled in the geopolitical machinery of the war, with heritage itself now treated as part of the conflict.
