What secrets about the UOJ did the SBU uncover through its agent?

"Agent Rosada". Photo: UOJ

Ovcharenko and Stupnytskyi remain held at the Lukyanivska pre-trial detention center. In September, at the SBU’s request, the court limited the suspects’ time for familiarizing themselves with the case materials, a deadline which passed on October 16. No materials were ever provided to them, and not a single interrogation has been conducted in nearly eight months of detention. Yet the proceedings continue to move forward, with the case already sent to trial.

Today, we wish to reveal a critical element of the persecution system that enabled the unjust arrest and imprisonment of journalists whose work made it difficult to crack down on the UOC discreetly and with impunity. This element was a person who pretended to be one of us but, in fact, was a tool in the hands of those who aimed to silence the Church.

The “inside man”

As you may have guessed, this “criminal organization” was uncovered in a classic, old-school KGB style by sending in a provocateur to our team.

Enter Ivan Rosada, a young, active journalist and “devout” UOC parishioner. He responded to our open job posting on the UOJ’s Telegram channel. He appeared well-prepared, quick-witted, always ready to help, though excessively inquisitive about matters unrelated to his work, and constantly asking everyone for loans. Indeed, there was hardly a person in our team or among our colleagues he hadn’t approached to borrow money.

But we aren’t the Stasi or MI6 to conduct background checks on every job candidate. Besides, there was no reason to suspect anything – the UOJ was not involved in any illegal activity, nor had we ever received a single warning from the authorities regarding unlawful conduct.

On March 12, the day our colleagues were detained, Rosada left all editorial chats. Soon after, screenshots of the UOJ staff’s work conversations became a primary element in what the SBU refers to as “evidence,” alongside a dubious analysis of website content that we have already reviewed.

The SBU made no effort to obscure the source of this leak. Attached to the suspicions were screenshots of UOJ editorial correspondence, clearly showing the Telegram account from which these screenshots originated.

But what kind of information was this? What did Rosada’s undercover activities reveal?

UOJ’s “scary secrets” and the “compelling evidence”

So what did Rosada’s revelations allow the SBU to claim as they announced they had exposed and dismantled “one of the largest FSB agent networks” in Ukraine? Unfortunately for those who believed these headlines, here’s the actual scoop brought to the SBU on a silver platter by their agent.

It turned out that:

• the UOJ website exists and openly declares its purpose: to defend the interests of the canonical Church – the largest religious denomination in the country – operating legally within the bounds of the law;
• That the UOJ pursues these goals guided by the principles of journalism: objectivity, fact-based reporting, source verification, and fact-checking. This was documented in UOJ’s internal work standards, which the SBU somewhat extravagantly labeled a “strategy of subversive activity in the information space.”
• That the website’s content is created by real people, not robots. People with names, lives, and private concerns.
• That, like any functioning team, the UOJ holds editorial meetings, has reporting guidelines, and maintains standard policies and practices, like any media outlet.

That’s it. Beyond this, the SBU’s narrative about our “criminal conspiracy” to aid the enemy spirals into a limitless field of speculation and conjecture, under which their “valuable witness” dutifully signed his name.

There’s no evidence to support these speculations – just vague claims and definitions that criminalize the lawful activities of journalists and defenders of religious rights. It’s impossible, for instance, to prove that the UOJ team is a “criminal organization” where every member consciously agreed to commit crimes or that the actions of our journalists amount to crimes, let alone high treason.

How might the existence of a criminal organization actually be proven? By producing screenshots, conversations, or recordings of one “criminal” persuading another to commit some evil act and betray the nation together.

How might treason and collaboration with an aggressor be proven? Again, through exchanges, communications with official representatives of a foreign state, evidence of recruitment, task assignments, progress reports, and, of course, payments from enemy accounts. In fact, SBU head Vasyl Malyuk even wrote a book on this, calling such facts the only possible proof. But neither Rosada nor the SBU’s investigation presented any of this – simply because it does not exist.

Since no such facts exist, the Ukrainian judges handling the case rely on a different type of “evidence”: the watchful eyes of SBU representatives, present as “public observers” at each hearing. Eyes that carry the mandate of the highest authority.

Lawless acts allowed, reporting on them forbidden

What’s the basis of this accusation and this shameful trial? What evidence do they have, besides Rosada’s testimony and orders from high levels of authority? The key evidence in the UOJ case consists of so-called “expert analyses” of over thirty UOJ news articles. According to psycholinguistic experts Eduard Litvinenko and Svitlana Dolynkovska, these texts somehow indicate treason. Exactly what logic and methodology can interpret these reports (still available on the website, by the way) as “collaboration with the enemy” remains known only to the experts and the prosecution team.

Here are some examples. Take this news item: “U.S. Secretary of State and U.K. Foreign Minister visit UGCC Cathedral in London.” As with all UOJ news articles, it simply states the facts of an event, includes quotes from participants – and no commentary. There are no evaluations or judgments. Yet the experts determined that this information not only “dishonors the clergy and faithful of the OCU” but also “supports the Russian Federation in subversive activities against Ukraine in the informational and religious spheres.”

Another headline reads: “Head of Ternopil Regional Administration: Give us the Lavra; we’ll find a way to expel the UOC.” The story merely quotes a statement from an official appointed by the President of Ukraine, with the same conclusions from the experts. This holds true for other statements made by various deputies from the presidential party “Servant of the People”.

Those who made these statements haven’t been accused of aiding Russia, so they continue in their posts, freely saturating the information space with inflammatory rhetoric. The journalists who printed these PUBLIC statements from other sources, however, are in prison. Incidentally, the original news sites from which UOJ republished this information (with full citations) are still operating, and the original texts remain accessible on their sites without concern from the SBU.

Even more interesting is the situation with news about church takeovers. Certain ardent “believers” from the OCU, often masked, cut locks off churches with power tools, beat priests bloody, and spray tear gas at worshippers. Yet there’s no criminal case in these incidents. A journalist who reports on it, however, is accused of creating “content for Russia” and, consequently, high treason.

 A house built from bricks of lies and its hired laborer

Despite the SBU accusing journalists of an “unpatriotic stance,” it has categorically refused to consider or include in the case articles critical of Russia and its war of aggression, critiques of Patriarch Kirill, and criticism of ROC clergy who supported the invasion. These articles were written and published on the UOJ site by the same journalists now accused of treason. Is this not contradictory? The prosecution doesn’t think so. When presented with evidence to this effect in court, prosecutors Valeria Vasechko and Ivan Dziuba consistently reply, “All evidence should be evaluated as a whole.” Selective “wholeness,” isn’t it?

But a house can only be built from solid bricks, not a pile of manure. Yet from this SBU-piled manure, there has been crafted a political case against several innocent journalists, aiming to bury them in prison. For the judges, at least outwardly, there is no sign of internal conflict or discomfort over this.

And into this structure of lies and falsifications, building the new “Gulag of the OCU”, agent Rosada – who had disguised himself as a devout Orthodox believer and journalist – laid his own efforts. He infiltrated our circles, gaining trust with clergy and Orthodox community members.

Maybe one day Ivan will try to explain why he did it. Perhaps he’ll claim he had no other choice, or that he was coerced by the SBU. We believe he had a choice – just as our journalists did. They could have left their path of truth, ceased their dangerous and unpopular mission, and stopped defending truth and the UOC.

Each of us made our own choice. Several of our colleagues now sit in prison because of theirs. And let Ivan Rosada know: we forgive him as Christians, and we hope he will one day repent if he hasn’t already.

The purpose of this article is simple – to ensure he can no longer harm anyone else, to make the Orthodox community aware of who he is, and to stop “Agent Rosada” from playing into hands of the SBU’s liars and persecutors.

Read also