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
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.
Dumenko came up with a way to fill the Lavra
In fact, the St. Theodosius Monastery has been liquidated, and now "female monasticism" will be developed there.
Why has the Culture Ministry not been banned yet?
There are numerous traitors and collaborators within the Ministry of Culture, the Verkhovna Rada, and the SBU. Yet for some reason, only the UOC is labeled “pro-Moscow.”