Claims of the ROC to the UOC: Where do they break the logic?

During the opening ceremony of the XXXII Nativity Readings at the State Kremlin Palace in Moscow on January 24, 2024, Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) delivered a lengthy and weighty speech, in which he stated that "the blessing of God be with all the fatherlands, whose sons and daughters make up the unified Body of the ROC." After that, Metropolitan Evgeny of Yekaterinburg, on behalf of the Patriarch, invited everyone to a festive concert.

However, after the concert, a scandal erupted on the Internet because a non-religious song "333" was performed at this very church concert, which blatantly clashed with the words of the ROC Primate. For most readers, the title of the song may not be entirely clear, so let's explain: "333" is a command to artillerymen "Battery: 300-30-3" for synchronizing barrage fire. Not during trainings but in the ongoing war of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The lyrics of the song unmistakably indicate this: "In a car with an inscription being neither long nor short, 'used', the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) are driving along the field. And beyond this field, a Russian officer accurately corrects the 'Smerch' and 'Iskander'. An ukrop (derogative for a Ukrainian soldier - Trans.) is behind the wheel in a car with swastika, pulling a coffin along the field. And beyond this field, a former hooligan accurately corrects the 'Smerch' and 'Uragan'. 'Three hundred thirty-three' from night to dawn, from sunrise to sunset 'Three hundred thirty-three'!"

In other words, at the ROC concert, the killings by "sons and daughters of the unified Body of the ROC" (referring to Patriarch Kirill's words) are glorified by other sons and daughters. After all, a significant portion of the AFU soldiers are parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Moreover, their murders are referred to as "sacred" by the Mother Church. Indeed, at another event during the Nativity Readings, Metropolitan Kirill of Stavropol, together with an RF general, led a conference titled "Holy War: Transformation of Russia", where he explicitly stated, "When we win in this holy war, then the transformation of our Russia will continue."

We understand that the clergy and believers of the ROC are convinced that Russian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine "for the Fatherland", "against Nazism", and generally for everything good against everything bad. For example, the vicar of the Patriarch, Bishop Kirill of Sergiev Posad, says that Russian soldiers are dying in a foreign country "in the battle for good, for light".

But how can mass deaths on both sides, destruction en masse and sorrow be something good, let alone receive approval and support from the Church? And how did we even get to this point? Because if someone in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was told two years ago that Russia would wage war in Ukraine and the ROC would hold concerts and conferences in support of it, no one would have ever believed it. Let's trace the path of relations between the UOC and the ROC from the beginning of the war and thoroughly examine the flaws in the optical scheme of the binoculars through which Russia views the situation around the UOC.

What has happened between the UOC and the ROC over the last two years?

Today, there are numerous publications in the media analyzing the warfare between Russia and Ukraine, delving into who provoked whom, who started first, the true reasons for this war, whether it could have been avoided, who is right, and who is wrong, and so on. Arguing about this can go on endlessly without reaching any conclusions. Let's leave all that for history and try to trace the transformation of the consciousness of many representatives of the ROC regarding the perception of the war from its very beginning to the present day.

Thus, on February 24, 2022, around 4 a.m., explosions resonate across Ukraine. Ukrainians are in complete bewilderment—could it be war? Then everyone watches Putin's speech, where he announces the start of the "Special Military Operation" (SMO), the goal of which is the "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine.

In fact, a number of Ukrainians initially took it at face value. After all, in recent years, Ukraine has essentially turned into the worst embodiment of the USSR, where May Day parades were replaced by torchlight processions and marches of the SS "Galicia". The ideology of the authorities boiled down to the following: don't go there, come here, wear embroidered shirts, don't speak Russian, believe in the "Ukrainian god". Church seizures, unpunished beating of believers, blatant lawlessness of the judiciary, the dictatorship of activists, and much more had tormented ordinary people so much since Poroshenko's time that they were anticipating some justice. No one at that moment thought about hundreds of thousands killed, destroyed cities, lost territories, and that "denazification" would target people in the first line, rather than authorities.

Reports of the first victims and destruction appear. The first comments also come from Russia, saying that Ukraine had better not brandished weapons and provoked by constantly demonstrating "American" armament. Well, it sounded like "you asked for it yourselves."

And then unexpectedly, a harsh statement is made by His Beatitude Onuphry, in which he condemns the aggression of the Russian Federation and blesses his flock to defend Ukraine. Many Russians were bewildered – why? After all, no one in Russia was planning to kill or would kill their fellow believers. After all, Putin made it clear: we will neutralize your weapons, take control of unruly nationalists who disrupt the lives of ordinary people, and that will be the end of the "Special Military Operation" (SMO).

But nothing was ending; everything was only beginning. People who managed to leave the occupied villages in central Ukraine reported that the actions of Russian soldiers did not resemble "liberation" at all. The first photos and videos of killed civilians went viral on social media. The narrative of "denazification" began to crack.

What about the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church? Initially, it was extremely cautious. It felt like the Patriarch was somewhat bewildered too. He did not yet understand how to reconcile the fact that his flock is also in Ukraine and the obvious reality that there is a war against this flock.

A week after the start of hostilities, his first reaction appeared: "God forbid that the current political situation in our fraternal Ukraine, which is close to us, is aimed at allowing the evil forces that have always fought against the unity of Rus and the Russian Church, to prevail. God forbid that a terrible line, stained with the blood of brothers, is drawn between Russia and Ukraine."

But this statement did not satisfy the "hot heads" in Ukraine, as everyone was expecting a clear condemnation of the war. Accusations were hurled at the Patriarch for his "ambiguous" position, with some even calling for the cessation of commemorations. The UOJ then published an article urging people not to jump to conclusions and not to associate the Church with politics.

For a while, the ROC tried to position itself "above the conflict." There was no response to the appeal from the Synod of the UOC on February 28, 2022, where the hierarchs asked the Patriarch to "to say your First Hierarch’s Word on the cessation of fratricidal bloodshed in Ukrainian land and call on the leadership of the Russian Federation to immediately stop hostilities." But there was also no overt support for the Russian authorities on the part of the Russian Church.

However, this did not last long. After a few weeks, it became clear that the so-called "special operation" was escalating into a full-scale war with massive casualties among both military personnel and the civilian population of Ukraine. Soon, the ecclesiastical pendulum swung from a "neutral" position to "support for the authorities".

After the ROC Patriarch handed an icon to the head of the Russian National Guard, General Viktor Zolotov, on March 13 at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, stating that "this image will inspire young warriors taking the oath," and the general complained that the "SMO" was not going as planned because "Nazis hide behind the backs of civilians," it became evident.

"But we are moving towards our intended goal step by step, and victory will be ours. And this icon will protect the Russian army and hasten our victory," the General declared to the Patriarch, who nodded in agreement.

After these patriarchal nods, it became clear: the ROC and the Russian Armed Forces are now united, with all the implications.

After this public support for the army from the Moscow Patriarch, a new wave of persecution against believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church began in Ukraine. The video featuring the Patriarch and Zolotov became "viral" in Ukraine, shared with outrage by tens and hundreds of thousands of people. A terror campaign against the "Moscow" Church was launched.

Believers are driven out of churches with hatred, security forces conduct searches and engage in various forms of abuse, and the media with Zelensky's "Kvartal 95" cynically humiliate the UOC. All this is happening while the UOC believers, alongside others, or even more (given that the front line in the east, where the UOC predominantly existed, experienced the war), endure the consequences of the conflict.

Simultaneously, in the Russian press, publications continue to appear, seemingly adding fuel to the fire of terror, with statements from ROC hierarchs about "our unity", "patriarchal responsibility for the Ukrainian people", etc. One may wonder, why? Can't they see what is happening? Isn't it difficult to connect the dots that in Ukraine, the ROC's "unity" with the UOC is now perceived as the "unity" of the UOC with the Russian army killing Ukrainians? And this is not just about non-religious people but also about priests and their parishioners. They felt betrayed by the Moscow Patriarchate.

Seeing this complete inadequacy of the leadership of the ROC in understanding the situation in which the UOC ended up in this war, witnessing the desire to give theological justification to mass killings, the clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church decides to hold a Council of Bishops of the UOC, followed by a Local Council.

No matter how much supporters of the "SMO" later tried to denigrate it, calling it "illegal", a "false council where the clergy bowed to authority", they simply cannot comprehend one obvious truth. People who had endured for their beliefs for so many years, literally shedding blood for them, could not suddenly become obedient puppets of security services.

Nor can they understand that the Council at Feofaniya was convened with the sole purpose of confirming and strengthening the administrative independence of the UOC, completely isolating itself from the anti-Christian course of the ROC. This Council was a clear response to the progressing spiritual illness of the Russian Orthodox brethren.

Although they later gloated that the "bends" before the persecutors did not help, no one dreamed that the decisions of the Council would stop the persecution of believers and raider seizures of their churches.

Once again, "Feofaniya" is evidence of the fallacy of the path taken by the ROC and a declaration that we do not participate in it. This is precisely what His Beatitude did at the time in the Verkhovna Rada when he deliberately did not stand up during the honoring of the "ATO heroes". In the parliament and in subsequent comments, he clearly articulated his anti-war position. Back then, it was a testimony before the authorities, and now it was a testimony before the entire Church. No more, no less.

"Feofaniya" ushered in manifestations of the remarkable inability of war preachers to draw logical conclusions. Let's list only the most obvious violations of elementary logic.

First logical fallacy: When we, losing our guys, save you, but you only complain

In the rhetoric of a significant portion of Russians, including those from the ROC, there is a sense of resentment towards Ukrainians – as if we liberate you from Nazism, lose our men, and you not only fail to express gratitude but also show solidarity with your Nazi government.

It seems that in the minds of such people, the Russian military is some noble knight who came to rescue a princess from the clutches of a terrible dragon. However, this "knight" in the course of the struggle does not defeat the dragon but harms the princess herself. We won't cite statistics on civilian casualties, or show the ruins of what were once cities and villages in various regions of Ukraine. Let's just remind you of the numbers related to the UOC.

During the war, 14 clergymen were killed, 5 went missing (and we understand what that means), and 20 were injured. A total of 119 churches were completely destroyed, and 329 were partially damaged. 30 monasteries were affected by shelling. And this statistics keeps growing every day.

Russians are being made to believe that in Ukraine, their army is fighting against fascists, Banderites, Azov members, and so on. In other words, they are fighting against the dragon according to this "fairy tale" analogy.

But in reality, it is quite different. Radicals in the Armed Forces of Ukraine constitute a negligible percentage. The overwhelming majority are ordinary men, laborers. Military personnel say that among those fighting on the front, 70–80% are parishioners of the UOC.

Some went to defend their homeland on their own, while others were taken from their homes or workplaces against their will. A significant amount of them is perishing. In the UOC, there are no longer any churches where they have not buried someone from the congregation or relatives of believers, and sometimes even the sons of priests.

For example, in Zaporizhzhia, a funeral service was performed for Alexander Kovalenko, the brother of Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia. Near Mukachevo, Vasyl Fechko, the son of Priest Vasyl, who had been killed in action, was buried. Near Sumy, a funeral service was held for Vasyl Korobeynyk, the son of Priest Henadiy. In Belilovka, it was the nephew of Metropolitan Augustine of Bila Tserkva and the son of Priest Mikhail – Ioan Markevich. Many more examples could be given.

Are the deaths of all these people the so-called "denazification"? Why do they die, while "Nazis, terrorists, and Satanists" from "Azov" are released freely? After all, was the need for "cleansing" Ukraine from such people Russia's excuse for the beginning of its "special military operation"? So, perhaps, "denazification" is just a propaganda tale for the people, whereas the Russian authorities initiated and continue the war based on their geopolitical interests?

One can debate about this for a long time, but there is a simple and obvious fact – all the territories "liberated from Nazism" in Ukraine have been incorporated into the Russian Federation. There is little doubt that in the case of conquering new lands, they will not face a similar fate. There are, undoubtedly, other interests in the war: geopolitical, financial, resource-related, and so on. So why tell these tales about "liberating you"? After all, instead of targeting "Banderites" (Bandera followers - Ed.) of Galicia, southeastern regions were affected, where pro-Russian sentiments have always been strong. It is there that almost every day brings new hardships, and people are uncertain whether they will survive the next day.

For this reason, many ardent Russophiles, after several weeks and months of war, turned into haters of everything related to Russia. And this was influenced not so much by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) or Americans with "Banderites" but by Russians themselves. The Orthodox people are not always distant from the internet and civilized society. Churchgoing individuals read, analyze, and draw conclusions. For example, that the destruction of infrastructure last winter was not a concern for "brothers" or liberating them from the tyranny of authorities, but rather an attempt (incidentally, unsuccessful) to achieve military objectives, disregarding the "trifles" such as the suffering of civilians.

Therefore, Ukrainians, after two years of war, approach stories about the "unity of Holy Rus" quite differently from Russians. For them, these stories have become a propaganda tale – too obviously diverging from reality.

Second logical fallacy: Praying for the unity of Holy Rus while destroying its heart

How can one pray for the "unity of Holy Rus" and simultaneously support military actions that dismantle this unity? In September 2022, Patriarch Kirill introduced a prayer for this "Holy Rus" into the liturgy. Here is a fragment of it:

"O Lord God of hosts, God of our salvation, look with mercy upon Your humble servants, hear and have mercy upon us: for those who wish to wage war against Holy Rus, seeking to divide and destroy its united people. Arise, O God, to help Your people, and grant us victory by Your strength. To Your faithful children, zealous for the unity of the Russian Church, give Your support, strengthen them in the spirit of brotherly love, and deliver them from troubles. Prevent those who tear apart in the darkness of their minds and harden their hearts from profaning Your robe, which is the Church of the Living God, and overthrow their intentions. Guide those in power with Your grace towards every good and enrich them with wisdom! Confirm the warriors and all defenders of our homeland in Your commandments, send them strength of spirit, and protect them from death, wounds, and captivity!"

What is "Holy Rus"? In reality, no one knows. This term is not church-related; it denotes a virtual spiritual-cultural-ideological space common to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. It is assumed that the peoples of these territories should stick together. But how does all this reconcile with the reality where one people of this "Rus" is fighting against another? It's unclear.

The prayer mentions forces aiming to "divide" it. Firstly, if these forces are not referring to Ukrainians but to the West, why is Russia not fighting against it? Why are missiles flying to Kyiv, Lviv, Khmelnytskyi, and not to Berlin, London, or Washington? Ukrainian cities are, after all, part of this "Rus"ю And isn't the launching of missiles contributing to the very "division" and "destruction of Holy Rus" against which the prayer is directed?

Secondly, the Patriarch expresses sympathy only when residents of the "Russian" part of "Holy Rus" perish. On December 31, 2023, he issued a statement regarding the strike of the AFU on Belgorod, which resulted in the death of 24 people: "Deeply shocked by the tragedy in Belgorod, which led to the death and injury of many people. The shelling of civilians, including children, can have no justification, as it reveals the inhuman malice and hatred of its perpetrators." However, two days earlier, over 50 civilians died as a result of mass shelling of Ukrainian cities. The ROC didn't even "notice" that. So, what kind of unity of Rus are they talking about?

Third logical fallacy: When the Patriarch supports those who kill you, but you are obliged to commemorate him

How can one demand the commemoration of the Patriarch from those he indirectly labels as the "world's evil"? This is precisely how the head of the ROC characterizes those with whom Russia is at war.

"We have entered a struggle that has metaphysical significance, rather than physical," he said in a sermon on Forgiveness Sunday, March 6, 2022.

"In the world, there is such a phenomenon as the struggle of good against evil, and it passes through state borders," he said in 2022 during a meeting with the military at a hospital.

"Today our country is facing an obvious challenge of evil – the same evil that threatens the entire world," the Patriarch said in a meeting with the Committee of Soldier's Families on December 12, 2023.

"Pray for your Fatherland because it is now resisting global evil," said the Primate of the ROC in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra on October 8, 2023.

How can one commemorate the Patriarch when, in fact, he says that a deceased soldier of the Russian Federation in Ukraine is going to heaven: "He sacrifices himself for others. Therefore, we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins a person has committed."

Yes, the Patriarch does not specify that he is specifically talking about Russian soldiers. But in light of his entire rhetoric, we cannot imagine that he meant Ukrainian warriors.

Demanding the commemoration of the Patriarch at such a moment is like expecting a child to profess love to a father while the parent is breaking their face in blood. And even if we assume that these blows are for educational purposes, soliciting love precisely at that moment seems mocking. How can one demand the commemoration of the Patriarch as the head of a united Russian Church if, according to his words, this unity involves "prayers for Russia, for the President, for the warriors; when each of you understands that you have your place in this struggle for the freedom of our Fatherland"? Can anyone seriously believe that a Ukrainian, whose relatives were killed or whose home was destroyed in the war, will start calling the one pushing for war against their country and people as the "great lord and father"?

Fourth logical fallacy: When spiritual warriors suddenly become "weaklings" and "traitors"

Some forces within the ROC like to claim that Orthodox believers in Ukraine have become spiritual weaklings and traitors who made deals with the authorities.

But how do believers, who are losing their churches, social standing, jobs, and material well-being to be part of the true Church, suddenly become submissive to the authorities whose main task is to push everyone into the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)? In what ways does this manifest?

How is it that zealous defenders of Orthodoxy and canons, who demonstrated this not just in words but through their lives, suddenly end up labeled as "violators of canonical rules"?

Let's recall that since the 1990s, millions of Orthodox believers in Western Ukraine, and since 2014, across the country, faced harsh persecution for the "MP" (Moscow Patriarchate) label. However, during all this time, they did not stop commemorating the Patriarch of Moscow during services until 2022. What happened to them? Did they suddenly fall ill, or did they unexpectedly lose their spiritual strength? And why should we think that something happened specifically to them and not with the Patriarch himself? Is there really no explanation for this?

Fifth logical fallacy: When you mock those who "got both war and shame", orchestrating this situation

The "pre-war" part of the ROC loves to quote the Churchill-attributed  phrase: "If a country chooses shame between war and shame, it gets both war and shame." They project this onto the UOC with an unmistakable allegation – that you, by holding the Council, betrayed the ROC and are "licking the boots of the authorities", while they are still taking away your churches.

It is worth remembering that before the war, Metropolitan Epifaniy complained that the authorities not only did not organize seizures, they refused to register churches that had already been "transferred" under Poroshenko.

However, a new powerful wave of seizures began after February 24, 2022. And we all understand why. The hottest phase of church raids occurred in the winter and spring of 2023 when the authorities realized that no coercion to unite with the OCU "worked". Neither massive searches by the Security Service of Ukraine, nor criminal cases, nor hate campaigns in the media yielded results. So, we can talk about two conclusions:

1. Repression against the UOC was provoked by the Russian Federation's attack, or rather, its support by the ROC.
2. All persecutions against the UOC could be easily stopped if the UOC had complied with the authorities' demands to unite with the OCU. But it didn't.

How can the ROC claim that the authorities pressured Metropolitan Onuphry and the bishops to hold the "SBU-staged" Council at the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra when there is no main result, for which the state could need it – the unification with the OCU? Why did the authorities need this Council if they didn't even register the new version of the Statute adopted at it?

How can you rant about "shame and war" in relation to the people enduring repression due to your own fault? This is a question of the orchestrators' conscience, who, among other things, write their essays about Ukrainian "traitors" while sitting in comfort and well-being.

Sixth logical fallacy: ROC acts the same way during "SMO" as UOC during ATO?

One of the main grievances from representatives of the ROC against the UOC and its hierarchy is the phrase, "Where were you for eight years?" This suggests that during the conflict in Donbas, the UOC was indifferent and silent regarding the suffering of the people in Donbas, doing nothing to alleviate it. Therefore, current complaints against the ROC and the Patriarch are groundless. The message is as follows, "Look in the mirror, be ashamed, and be silent." However, before comparing the positions of the church hierarchies, let's recall a couple of non-ecclesiastical moments.

Firstly, the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO), despite moral questions about it, was conducted by the Ukrainian authorities on their territory. Moreover, the Russian Federation recognized this authority as legitimate in 2014.

Secondly, the ATO itself happened because Moscow signaled to residents of the ORDLO (separatist-held territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions - Ed.) that it was willing to accept them into the Russian Federation, similar to what happened with Crimea. Without ideological, financial, and military support, there would be no ATO, and consequently, the suffering of the people in Donbas, which exacerbated with the start of "SMO".

Now, regarding the position of the church hierarchy:

In November 2023, the 25th Congress of the Russian People's Council was held in Moscow, chaired by Patriarch Kirill. Before its start, Putin announced a minute of silence in honor of the fallen SMO soldiers. Everyone stood and remained silent. Seemingly a passable situation. Why are we mentioning this?

In May 2015, a hate campaign against Metropolitan Onuphry unfolded in the media and social networks because he did not stand up in the Verkhovna Rada during the honoring of ATO heroes. Many perceived this as support for Russia in the Donbas conflict. However, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was not on anyone's side. In the person of Metropolitan Onuphry, it protested against the war as a phenomenon.

Metropolitan Onuphry responded to all the haters: "We did not stand because it was our protest against the war as a phenomenon. We do not want the war to continue on our land. We do not want people to kill each other. We want peace, and God's blessing on our land."

Soon after, Metropolitan Onuphry gave a comprehensive interview to the UOJ, where he expanded on this theme: "This is a fratricidal war. Therefore, the Church, both after the 1917 revolution and after the Revolution of Dignity in 2013-2014, calls for people to reconcile with each other, to forgive each other... The Church calls for people to find the strength to forgive each other and stop killing each other. This position of the Church is not new; it has been holding such a position since 1917 and in other periods, during the time of Kievan Rus, when our princes rebelled under Saint Vladimir, killed each other – Sviatopolk, then one prince against another. At that time, our Church, the canonical Church, called for forgiveness. Monks and bishops were expelled for this; we were hated, and then they saw that we were right, and they reconciled."

In 2016, Metropolitan Onuphry blessed the countrywide All-Ukrainian Cross Procession for Peace. Two huge columns set out from the Sviatohirsk (eastern part) and Pochayiv (western part) Lavras and, after several weeks, converged in Kyiv in unified prayer on the Day of the Baptism of Rus.

This procession could be described as a prayerful protest against the war, and that's precisely how Ukrainian society interpreted it. A total smear campaign started against the UOC. Cross walkers were denied passage through cities, radicals organized attacks against them, the police claimed "road mining", and there was an orgy of hatred on all channels. In the Verkhovna Rada, MPs hysterically shouted and demanded that believers go ask for peace not in Kyiv but in Moscow, "before Putin".

Already during the war in Ukraine, when a group of Russian prisoners was brought to the Lavra, Metropolitan Onuphry conducted a moleben with them, distributed prayer books, and even chocolate (which provoked a barrage of criticism from patriots). But the main thing was not even that; it was the words that the Primate spoke:

"I want to wish that the Lord brings you back to your homeland, families, so that you see mothers, sisters, wives, children, brothers, friends. I would like you to tell them such words: we do not want the war that is happening in Ukraine today. We do not want our cities, villages to be destroyed, for our people and your people to die. We do not want mothers in Ukraine or Russia to meet their dead sons and cry over them with bitter, inconsolable tears. This needs to be stopped; it can be stopped.

We need to find a word of love that can silence the weapons, stop the rockets. We want peace. Our UOC did everything for the Russian and Ukrainian peoples to live in peace, harmony, and love. It turned out the way it did. But even if evil has happened, it needs to be stopped. May the Lord give our rulers the courage, reason, and wisdom to find that word of love that stops all evil. I want to wish that God protects you, all people who are on the battlefield. War is not the means by which unity can be achieved between nations, between families. Violence cannot create unity; unity is created by love. And love is God. One who prays and follows the divine commandments is a Godly person. May God bless our lands with peace.

You cannot kill each other. Death brings no benefit to anyone, only sorrow to every home. For nations that emerged from the common font of Baptism to war against each other is disgraceful. And we must do everything to stop this madness."

In this long quote, there is no condemning pathos, no archpastoral loftiness, and no political expediency. These are not the words of the Primate, but of a shepherd and a father. They come not from reason but from the heart.

We would be happy if Patriarch Kirill had spoken up in exactly the same way. Then he would be certainly commemorated in every UOC temple.

Seventh logical fallacy: When the ROC supports the "SMO" because the Church historically has always been on the side of authorities and people

If that's the case, then the UOC should have supported the authorities during the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO).

Metropolitan Onuphry did not need any "refusals to stand up", no interviews stating that the Church upholds peace. There was no need to organize any All-Ukrainian Cross Processions for Peace. Why call upon oneself the hatred of nationalists, society, and the media? He could have joined the pro-war position of the UGCC, the UOC-KP, and the OCU, which argued their support for the ATO precisely by saying that they were "on the side of their authorities and people". He could have supported the authorities and maintained the possibility for the UOC to retain the position it held before Maidan.

This would have been the easiest path if the Church wanted to remain a court organization with a religious twist, receiving "perks" from the hands of the authorities. But if the Church wants to remain a Church, it must take a different path. Let's recall the quote from Metropolitan Onuphry: "War is not the means by which unity can be achieved between nations, between families. Violence cannot create unity; unity is created by love."

Eighth logical fallacy: When you monitor others' compliance with canons while violating them yourself

Despite some voices within the ROC claiming a "schismatic" status for the UOC after the Tomos of Autocephaly, at the official level, the Moscow Patriarchate asserts that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church maintains its canonical status. Consequently, the decisions of its governing bodies are entirely legitimate. But in this case, how can they justify "seizing" entire dioceses from the UOC? How can they ignore the decisions of the UOC's ecclesiastical leadership?

Crimea, the Berdiansk Diocese, part of the Kherson Diocese, and the ambiguous situation in the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions not under Ukrainian control – each case involved different methods and explanations (in the case of Crimea, the ROC Synod even referred to the decisions of the UOC's Council in Kyiv). However, everyone understands that there were and are no pastoral reasons for such actions. In fact, it turns out that Moscow employs the formula it once criticized the Ecumenical Patriarchate for: "The boundaries of the Church should follow the borders of the state."

We see that the Moscow Patriarchate systematically takes away dioceses from the UOC in the territories occupied by the Russian army, simultaneously provoking mockery of the UOC by Ukrainian "patriots".

But then, how are the actions of the ROC fundamentally different from those of the OCU (if we disregard the non-ecclesiastical status of the Dumenko-led organization)? Is it only the scale of expropriations?

Both the ROC and the OCU are acting today "by the right of the strong". So, where is the "unity of Holy Rus" in this? Where is Christ, where is love? Where, in the end, are those very canons?

Ninth logical fallacy: When the Church supports war because it's prayed for in the Liturgy

Supporters of war in the Russian Orthodox Church often quote a prayer from the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great:

"Remember, O Lord, the faithful and Christ-loving rulers, whom you have allowed to govern on earth: arm them with truth and cover them with favour as a shield on the day of battle, strengthen their muscle, exalt their right hand, establish their reign, and subdue all barbarian tongues (nations – Trans.) that seek war: grant them profound and lasting peace: speak to their hearts good things concerning your Church and all Your people that in tranquillity we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."

From this prayer, they conclude that any claims of the incompatibility of war with the liturgy are unfounded.

However, every Christian knows that approaching Communion in a state of enmity with someone is unacceptable. Yet here, they want to imply that war (with all its accompanying horrors) and the Eucharist are entirely compatible because such a prayer exists.

Firstly, research into this prayer proves that the "pro-war" parts were not written by St. Basil but are later insertions of unknown origin. Secondly, even if taken as "gospel truth", how can these words be applied to the current situation? Are Ukrainians not part of "Holy Rus", not part of the "unified Body of the Russian Church". but "barbarous tongues"? If so, why demand their liturgical mention from barbarians? And who, then, is the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church? The head of the "tongues that seek war"?

Tenth logical fallacy: When the phrase "God saves the world through Putin" is okay, but substituting "victory" with "peace" is not okay

Let's remind you that at a joint conference of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Armed Forces titled "Holy War: Transformation of Russia", Metropolitan Kirill of Stavropol stated, "When we win in this holy war, the transformation of our Russia will continue." Later, Archbishop Savva (Tutunov), a vicar of the Patriarch, posted a message of military correspondent Afanasyev in his Telegram channel with the words, "We are indeed experiencing a new Baptism of Russia—through blood and pain, in the fire of war, our people return to themselves, or rather—to God." Archbishop Pityrim dedicated an ode to Putin, claiming that through him, God will save the entire world. Previously, the same archbishop stated that soldiers dying in "their war for the homeland" are pleasing to God.

The academic dictionary tells us that "sacred" refers to someone or something recognized by someone as divine, possessing sanctity, grace: the Holy Scriptures, the holy sacrament, etc. Can war, bringing only death, destruction, sorrow, and suffering, be related to God and sanctity? Especially a war that is not just and defensive but expansionist, where Russia annexes territories.

Does the Church now know another Baptism, not through water but through "blood and pain"? Is returning to God only possible through such means?

Any believer knows that the Savior of the world can only be named Christ: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17). When Archbishop Pityrim puts Putin in the place of Christ, it is at least an alarming sign.

All these pieces fit into one picture. The ROC is currently "Christianizing" war. That is, everything is done to convince people that a "righteous" war does not contradict the commandments of Christ. Go and fight. And if you die, according to Patriarch Kirill, all your sins will be washed away, and you will go to heaven.

Consequently, all those who claim that war is incompatible with prayer and the liturgy are declared "pacifists", "Tolstoyans", and harshly persecuted.

One well-known priest of the ROC, for refusing to read the "Prayer for Victory" during the service, was banned from serving and deprived of his rank. He faced real persecution in church media and the media. The same fate befell Priest Ioann Kovalyov, who merely replaced the word "victory" with "peace" in the prayer. In turn, the Bishop of Rzhev publicly humiliated Priest Ilya Gavryshkiv for a similar "transgression", after which he chose to resign.

These actions in the ROC are justified by the thesis that Christianity is not about pacifism.

But let's imagine the following episode in the Gospel: "And behold, someone comes and asks Him, what should I do if I'm afraid that my brother wants to hit me and possibly kill me, and then take possession of my house?" And to this, Christ would answer, "You strike him first, and if necessary, kill him. This way, you will save yourself and secure your house." Can you imagine such a thing or something similar? However, those seeking theological justifications for military actions somehow do.

However, there is also a Christian understanding of perceived threats. Here's an example from the Ancient Patericon: "Someone asked Abba Sisoes: If I am sitting in the desert, and a barbarian comes wanting to kill me, and I can resist him – should I kill him?" The elder replied: "No, but surrender him to God. Because no matter what temptation befalls a person, he must say that it happened to him because of his sins. However, everything good comes from God's grace."

What would Abba Sisoes hear in Russia today? "Silly Abba, you should have gathered the brethren long ago, gone to the barbarian, killed him and his relatives, and on the conquered lands raised the banner with the Non-Handmade Savior."

Eleventh logical fallacy: When Church can't exist without a country

Even those who are not particularly religious are familiar with the words of Christ: "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

However, Patriarch Kirill tells the monks of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius: "We don't pray about the most important thing—about the salvation of Russia <...> Because if there is no free Russia, then there will be no Russian Church."

And we genuinely don't understand—does the Russian Orthodox Church truly believe that if Russia collapses, the Church will disappear? Yet, there are no eternal empires; the mightiest ones eventually crumble, and new ones emerge in their place. It's unlikely that the Russian Federation will be an exception.

We know that the Church began its life in the catacombs and has produced many saints throughout its history. If, at some point, the Church in the territory of the Russian Federation is forced to return to such conditions, does that mean it will cease to exist? And what about Ukraine? Currently, the UOC is practically operating outside the law. In the western part of the country, authorities and police literally "hunt down" believers, who are forced to conduct secret worship services, moving from one parishioner's house to another (since churches have long been seized). Does this mean that if Ukraine disappears, the UOC will cease to exist? Of course not. But why can the UOC exist independently of the state, while the ROC supposedly cannot?

Even if all the churches are taken away, the Church won't disappear. Where there is a priest, where two or three gather in the name of Christ, where the Eucharist is celebrated, His Church already exists. Even after the UOC was practically sidelined in public life, it didn't vanish. On the contrary, many people say that their faith has become much stronger than in the prosperous "pre-Maidan" times.

Twelfth logical fallacy: Pushing a person towards imprisonment with awards

On January 30, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church awarded UOC Metropolitan Jonathan of Tulchyn with the Order of Sergius of Radonezh, 1st degree, "for many years of fruitful archpastoral work and on the occasion of your jubilee". This was done by the Patriarch to his hierarch, even though the Ukrainian bishop had been sentenced to 5 years in prison for "recognizing the legitimacy and denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorifying its participants."

In 2022, when large-scale searches were conducted by the Security Service of Ukraine in churches and monasteries throughout Ukraine, Metropolitan Antony, the head of the Department for External Church Relations of the ROC, stated that such searches "fit into the context of the struggle against everything Russian". Father Nikolai Balashov, an adviser to the Patriarch of the ROC, eagerly awaited the text of the draft law banning the "UOC in Ukraine" because it would be "certainly fascinating reading".

One can't help but feel that everything befalling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is nothing more than "fascinating reading" for our Russian brothers. In order to add more "fascination" to this reading, their awards or comments can reiterate the connection of the ROC with the UOC, though they are well aware of the possible consequences.

Conclusion: Pushing towards martyrdom instead of suffering themselves

All these (and many other) logical fallacies can be explained only by one thing – the clouding of the mind, which occurred as a result of rooting in sin. It sounds pompous, but there is no other way to put it. And this sin, it seems, killed whatever mercy. Because there is an impression that for the ROC, the suffering of Ukrainian Orthodox believers is some kind of show that can be presented on the "Spas" channel to tell the viewers "how our guys are fighting against the Nazis for this". To tell "what brave princes we are", rescuing a princess from the dragon. And if the princess, wounded by the "accurate" shots of the warrior-prince, shouts to him that she no longer needs to be rescued, the fairy tale doesn't add up. That's why they demand suffering from us to secure a happy ending.

Ukrainians are constantly pushed towards martyrdom by the ROC: they need to commemorate the Patriarch, organize mass protests on the streets, barricade themselves in the caves of the Lavra to protect the shrine, and much more. But instead of calling on others to suffer, why not suffer yourself? After all, it is enough to say simple words: "I am a Christian and do not want to kill Orthodox brothers in faith."

One can participate in the All-Russian Cross Procession for peace from St. Petersburg to Moscow or even to the moon and back. However, it will suffice for the Primate of the ROC, during a moment of silence in the State Duma, not to stand up with everyone and then say these words: "This was our protest against war as a phenomenon... We do not want mothers in Ukraine or Russia to meet their dead sons and weep over them with bitter, inconsolable tears. This needs to be stopped, and it can be stopped."

Thus, if you are unlikely to become a martyr, you can certainly become a confessor.