A government scenario for communities that managed to expel raiders

A police officer using force against parishioners in Ust-Putyla. Photo: UOJ

Sources in the Bukovynian Ust-Putyla report that on May 27, this tiny village was literally flooded with police. Law enforcers were going door to door checking if men have registered weapons. They also visited the school, where they made it clear to children and teachers that defending their church is not the best idea.

These police actions remind the scenario of events in another Bukovynian village - Verkhni Stanivtsi.

There, let us recall, OCU militants led by Hryshchuk also seized the church, but the UOC community managed to drive them out. In the following days, Stanivtsi was similarly cordoned off by the police, who similarly inquired whether the men had weapons. And when they were convinced that there was no danger of armed confrontation, a demonstrative seizure was carried out. The police pushed back the parishioners, made a corridor for the raiders, and they, breaking down the doors, seized the shrine.

Both Stanivtsi and Ust-Putyla are rare examples where parishioners managed to drive out OCU militants on their own. Such occurrences in religious conflicts are rare. Moreover, it is a precedent that can serve as an example for others. And since the authorities work in tandem with the "state" OCU, they are looking for "anti-crisis" scenarios. In Verkhni Stanivtsi, this scenario worked - the repeated seizure with the help of law enforcement was successful. Obviously, it will be applied in Ust-Putyla as well. Judging by the footage from this village on May 21, where police were actively using force against elderly clerics and parishioners, it is unlikely that law enforcers will show any leniency during a new assault on the church.

Unfortunately, it must be stated that in Bukovyna, the actions of these "guardians of the law" do not quite correspond to the etymology of the word. People to whom the state has given a monopoly on force are using it not for protection or the rule of law. They are using it for the reprisal of one group of Ukrainians against another.

And if the Verkhni Stanivtsi scenario is repeated in Ust-Putyla, it would be more appropriate to call the law enforcers "OCU-enforcers". Unfortunately.

```

Read also

A hint at a new demographic reality?

It appears that we are facing a mass influx of migrants from the poorest countries of Africa and other regions. And the absolute majority of them will profess Islam.

On the seizure of a UGCC сhurch in Tokmak

Statements by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church about “blasphemy” are not the cry of a persecuted Church. They are a textbook example of double standards.

On Budanov's statement regarding UOC

For Yelensky and his the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), Budanov's statement was very untimely.

Why does OCU still celebrate Easter “with Moskals”?

On social media, “patriots” are again asking in exasperation: why are we still celebrating Easter with Moscow? How much longer?

Did Patriarch Bartholomew really mourn Filaret’s death?

Constantinople has never recognized Filaret as a patriarch – not “His Holiness,” not “honorary,” not under any title whatsoever. That alone makes the line in the Ukrainian presidential press service’s report sound astonishingly implausible.

Why did Dumenko sit in Metropolitan Onufriy’s chair?

The head of the OCU has his own residence – and Filaret’s residence as well. But what he needs is the Lavra, Metropolitan Onufriy’s office and chair.