On Russia’s “defense” of the UOC
Ukraine–Russia negotiations in Turkey. Photo: GettyImages
After the latest round of Ukraine–Russia negotiations, many figures from the OCU and Ukrainian authorities mocked and twisted the Russian memorandum, where point 11 called for the lifting of restrictions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Their logic is blunt: “If Moscow mentions the UOC, then the UOC must be an arm of Moscow – and thus an enemy.”
Let us be clear: the document does not call the UOC a Russian Church. But in the very first point, it does state explicitly that Russia considers Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions to be Russian territory. So – does this mean Ukraine must now abandon those regions? Must the people who live there be stripped of Ukrainian identity and treated as outsiders?
If we follow the "church logic" of some of our fellow citizens – then yes, apparently we must.
But tell me: who benefits from that? Ukraine? Or Russia?
Since the start of the war, many Ukrainians have trapped themselves in a false, reactionary logic: that everything Russia says is a lie by default, and thus, Ukraine must do the opposite – on principle, in defiance.
That’s how we get the rewriting of our shared history, language, culture.
Russia says the SS “Galicia” Division were Nazis? Then we will glorify them.
Russia honors Tchaikovsky, Bulgakov, Gogol? Then we will ban them.
Russia celebrates Victory Day? Then we will erase it.
At this rate, if tomorrow Russia declares that water in the Dnipro is fresh, we’ll insist it’s salty.
And the campaign against the UOC fits perfectly into this tragic absurdity.
But is Ukraine really winning anything from this? Is this revenge or self-sabotage?
Who, in the end, is truly served by our war against the Church?
Read also
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.
Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?
The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.
Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?
Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”
Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?
The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?
The Lavra: Who is the master of the house?
Neither the authorities nor the OCU actually need Orthodox churches. What they need is to show who is in charge of them.