UOJ case: Ignorant experts – a boon for SBU
We are analyzing the expert opinion reports that could lead the UOJ journalists to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
🙏 You can help defend Orthodox journalists through the following details:
Card: 5375 4112 1927 4706
send.monobank.ua
In early July 2024, it was revealed that criminal cases have been opened against experts of the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Examinations (KSRIFE) E. Lytvynenko and S. Dolynkivska, whose expert reports formed the basis of severe SBU accusations against the UOJ journalists and a UOC priest.
Additionally, it is known that in 2022, Lytvynenko was stripped of his license for falsifying an expert report, and according to Andriy Ovcharenko's lawyer Ilya Serafimov, Dolynkivska's husband is an SBU employee. Thus, there are serious questions about their morality, professionalism, and objectivity. But is this list exhaustive? It should be noted that the KSRIFE reports are the only "evidence" of the investigation, the foundation of the accusation, "thanks" to which journalists and the UOC priest could end up in prison for the rest of their lives. And what kind of life is it in prison, away from their families, children, and loved ones? We all understand that it is not a life but torture. Essentially, the KSRIFE experts have taken on a very serious and terrible responsibility – to ruin the lives of many people – the journalists and the priest themselves, their wives, elderly and sick parents whom they might not even be able to bury, and children who may never see their fathers again.
The UOJ editorial board has obtained these very expert reports, which accuse our colleagues of treason, aiding the aggressor, creating a criminal group, and other serious crimes. We offer you an analysis of the most striking moments of the KSRIFE specialists' work.
"NATO" instead of "Natovp": hearing or conscience issues?
In the KSRIFE report 1719/24-61/1720/24-36 dated 24.05.24, experts analyze a video allegedly published on the Orthosapiens YouTube channel under the title "final film". A strange title, isn’t it? Even stranger is that we did not find such a video on the channel. Most likely, the experts analyzed unpublished working material, access to which they obtained from the SBU. Whether it was planned for publication is unknown. Let’s skip ahead and read the conclusions. They state that this video material "by its objective content is aimed at harming Ukraine's information security," and also "aimed at providing assistance to the Russian Federation in conducting subversive activities, which poses a threat to national interests and state security."
Let's trace what evidence the experts found for such serious accusations.
The transcript of the video provided by the experts contains quotes from UOC priests Serhiy Chertylin and Fr. Volodymyr, an unnamed deacon, and parishioners. Judging by the context, it might be about events in the village of Trebukhiv, Kyiv region.
Here’s what is particularly incriminated to Fr. Serhiy.
"Imagine yourself in the place of a priest who is being driven out of his home with a little daughter by an aggressive NATO," the experts quote the priest as saying. In the resolution part, the experts assert that the video material "spreads narratives that fully correspond to the narratives spread by Russian propaganda and became the ideological basis of Russian military aggression, namely: ... The oppression and persecution of UOC believers is happening with the assistance of 'aggressive NATO.'"
At the same time, in the published fragment of the film, it is clearly heard that Fr. Serhiy said "aggressive crowd" (in the original Ukrainian "ahresyvnyi natovp"). The context of the priest's words, in which he talks about the technology of "transitions" to the OCU, leaves no doubt – to find NATO there, one must either have very poor hearing or a very rich imagination. Moreover, given that these fantasies are the basis for accusing people of working for the Russian Federation and threatening national security (with the prospect of life imprisonment), it is more appropriate to talk about serious conscience issues.
If experts confuse the OCU with the UOC, are they really experts?
We are used to the term "expert" referring to a highly professional specialist in a specific field. If that field is religion, the expertise should involve individuals with religious education or at least deep knowledge of religious matters. Do the KSRIFE experts possess such knowledge? Judge for yourselves.
In all three expert reports (dated 02.02.24, 24.05.24, and 31.05.24), they clearly confuse the names of the UOC (Ukrainian Orthodox Church) and the OCU (Orthodox Church of Ukraine).
For example, in the document dated 24.05.24, the experts, extracting the main theses of UOJ, Myriany and Orthosapiens authors, write on their behalf: "The seizure of OCU churches has developed a raiding mechanism involving radicals, police, and the military... The OCU is subjected to unjustified informational attacks during which it is unfairly accused of unpatriotic and hostile attitudes towards Ukrainian statehood." Similar formulations are found in the expert report dated 31.05.24.
It is easy to guess that in these phrases, "OCU" should be "UOC" according to the context. If only because no OCU church has been seized so far.
Another example of extracting UOJ theses from the same expert report as "distorted ideological constructs beneficial to the Russian government": "Due to their devotion to their faith and religious denomination, OCU believers suffer from negative attitudes from the current government and UOC believers, and therefore are forced to defend their interests and respond to attacks from the authorities and religious opponents."
As any reasonable person understands, no OCU members suffer from attacks by the authorities or UOC representatives, so it is evident that the experts simply got confused. There are other examples of the experts' "professionalism" where they confuse the OCU and the UOC, but the volume of this publication does not allow for all of them to be listed.
The independence of the UOC from Moscow as a "manipulation beneficial to Russia"
Continuing the analysis of the "professionalism" of experts in the religious sphere, let's present examples of blunders that can only be described as shocking.
Among the "false ideological constructs beneficial to the current regime of the Russian Federation" (which they found in UOJ news), KSRIFE specialists write: "The UOC is autonomous and independent from Moscow and professes only spiritual unity with the Orthodox Churches of Russia, Belarus, and Moldova as descendants of the unified ancient Russian Church" (expert report dated 02.02.24).
Here, one can only throw up their hands. What is false here? What do the experts disagree with? That the UOC is independent from Moscow? Do they have proof to the contrary? Perhaps they disagree that the mentioned Churches historically formed a single Russian Church? And the main question – how can the independence of the UOC be "beneficial to the current regime of the Russian Federation"?
In the expert report dated 24.05.24, specialists, as "destructive influence" in UOJ publications, write: "The direction of the investigated language messages is to promote the idea of the UOC as the only canonical church."
But, dear experts, considering one's Church as unified and canonical is an inalienable right of every believer, guaranteed by the Constitution. How can this suddenly become "destructive influence"?
In the same report, it is stated that the main idea of UOJ and Myriany publications, as well as the film featuring Fr. Serhiy Chertylin, is "discrediting the leadership of Ukraine" in favor of ideological constructs beneficial to the Russian Federation, including: "The use of radical groups by the authorities to fight against the ROC."
But, dear experts, there is no ROC in Ukraine, only the UOC. And if people calling themselves experts do not know this, what trust can they be given?
However, such statements seem quite consistent if we analyze what they consider "manipulation" in UOJ publications.
For example, quoting His Beatitude Onuphry and UOC priests is "manipulation in the form of appeals to authority." As an example, the experts cited the Metropolitan's statement in support of Ukraine, made in the first hours of the Russian invasion. Absurd? Yes. But no more absurd than other cases.
For instance, in the UOJ's publication (referencing the UOC press service) "The UOC explains why its status is more autocephalous than the OCU's", experts were "hooked" by the words that "there are no signs of its connection with Moscow in the UOC Statute." They claimed this to be "manipulative technology in the form of persuasion."
And here, one is at a loss – how can the formulations of the official document of a multi-million-member denomination (which, by the way, is publicly available) be considered "manipulation"? Mr. Lytvynenko and Mrs. Dolynkivska, did you even look at it? How can these people be called experts if they blatantly label white as black?
How to imprison someone for quotes?
Reporting the position of any individual (even if they are negatively perceived in your country) is an essential principle of objective journalism. For instance, leading Ukrainian media outlets quote Putin, Peskov, and other high-ranking officials of the aggressor country almost daily. No one accuses them of threatening national security. However, the KSRIFE experts are precisely engaged in this against the UOJ. They believe that if a news item contains "incorrect" statements by a speaker, it can be grounds for holding the journalist who published it accountable.
For example, in the publication "Kadyrov comments on the Pope's words about the cruelty of Chechens in the 'SMO'," experts saw "signs of glorifying individuals who committed armed aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation." And this is despite the fact that the text contains no evaluative judgments, only quotes. Interestingly, the same information (about the Pope and Kadyrov) was published at the time by a dozen Ukrainian media outlets, including major ones like "Espreso", "Korrespondent", "Ukrnet", "Censor", and others. Why then is no one accusing them of glorifying Russian soldiers?
But there are other examples as well. For instance, the UOJ publication "ROC: Donbas's belonging to the Russian Federation is a sacred reality" contains nothing but a quote from Patriarch Kirill – no comments, no evaluations. Nevertheless, experts claimed it "justifies the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the occupation of its territory."
Another example is the UOJ publication "Hierarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church: Most Churches ignore citizen Dumenko," which quotes Bishop Irinej of Bačka. In this, experts similarly saw "denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine." These conclusions became the basis for charging journalists under one of the most severe articles of the Criminal Code. Due to these conclusions, they have been behind bars for four months.
Can't find much to accuse? Then we'll fuse you with Russian media
In the expert report dated 31.05.24, specialists combined UOJ publications with archived Facebook posts by Denis Zharkikh, Ekaterina Zharkikh, and, attention... with a broadcast from the Russian channel "Radonezh TV". And based on the analysis of these materials, they draw general "criminal" conclusions. It hardly needs explaining to the reader that this "method" is a classic manipulation. Every journalist or editor can only be responsible for their work. The UOJ certainly cannot be held accountable for the materials of Russian media. Or should we thank the SBU and experts for not combining UOJ materials with broadcasts from Solovyov or "Russia 1"?
Disinformation or Truth?
When you read the conclusions of the experts, it gives the impression that they are working in the press service of Epifaniy Dumenko's structure.
Judge for yourselves Specialists claim that publications by the UOJ, Myriany, Pershy Kozatsky, and videos featuring Father Serhiy Chertylin "disorient the audience through deliberate misinformation," "manipulate facts," and use "methods of concealed latent falsehood." However, they do not provide a single fact of misinformation, manipulation, or falsehood. Experts simply highlight expressions in the texts that they consider incorrect. There are numerous such highlights in their documents. Let's take a look at a few examples.
"Our parishioners consciously chose their faith, the true Church, Christ's Church..." (by the way, in the experts' transcription, they wrote "Christ's" as "Crucifixion's").
"The OCU is not recognized by 11 Local Churches..."
"The UOC under the leadership of His Beatitude Onufriy are accustomed to being strong and defending their faith."
"We are not enemies of our state and do not deserve to be branded as traitors and collaborators."
According to the experts, these and many other phrases are "examples of manipulative language behavior" that imposes a negative attitude towards the OCU on people. Moreover, in the specialists' opinion, the publications "instigate confrontation and exacerbate conflicts between UOC believers and their religious opponents."
So, this is their "objectivity". It's not the representatives of the OCU who create confrontation, raiding hundreds of churches. It's those who talk about it who are to blame. Moreover, those who talk about it are "distorting the facts and events." Again, the experts provide no examples of such distortions. Here are a few more theses from journalists that they a priori consider false. Let's quote them with brief comments.
"The Ukrainian authorities, without the knowledge and consent of UOC believers, transfer their churches to the jurisdiction of the OCU in order to subsequently cease their religious activities."
The UOJ website is filled with examples where local authorities organize transfers of communities to the OCU. Dozens of local councils "ban" the UOC in their regions. Mayors of Ivano-Frankivsk and Lviv boast about closing and demolishing the last UOC churches, claiming their regions are now "cleansed" of them. And all of this is "disinformation"? Let's quote the words of M. Podolyak, an advisor to the head of the President's Office, who practically acts as a government spokesperson: "The UOC will gradually move to Russian cities and do something there. And in Ukraine, there will only be the OCU."
"The oppression and persecution of UOC believers are happening with the help of 'aggressive NATO'."
No comments needed.
"There is no freedom of speech and religion in Ukraine."
Is this really "disinformation"? The fact that today church journalists, priests, and metropolitans are behind bars on absurd charges speaks for itself. Or does it not?
"The OCU was created by the fifth president, Petro Poroshenko, to fulfill his own political ambitions."
Let's recall just two facts.
Poroshenko presided over the "unification council", and his name is inscribed in the Tomos text.
Poroshenko's slogan during his pre-election campaign was "army, language, faith". Political technologist T. Berezovets directly stated in 2018 that the creation of a new church was "just a usual pre-election technology." So, a question to the experts – where is the falsehood here?
"Church are seized via locks being cut, doors being broken down, via scuffles, beatings, intimidation, and tear gas use."
There are dozens and hundreds of videos online (including on UOJ resources) where you can see with your own eyes that everything mentioned above is pure truth.
"Transition to the OCU is a betrayal of faith, and the majority of Ukrainians do not want to make such a transition."
On the same UOJ website, there are numerous publications stating that believers whose churches were taken from them are building new ones or continuing services in homes, apartments, barns, garages, and other makeshift places. So they do not wish to transition to the OCU. Where is the "disinformation" here? You can call truth a lie, but that won't change the fact that it's still the truth.
Conclusions
The documents prepared by experts from the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Examinations under the auspices of the SBU are a striking example of amateurism combined with bias. Just the mention of "aggressive NATO" in a phrase where NATO cannot possibly be involved is truly bewildering. This isn't a school essay; it's a document that directly impacts the lives of many people. Additionally, let's recall how KSRIFE experts label the statutes of the UOC as manipulative, confuse the names of the UOC and OCU, and consider news publications made according to all journalistic standards as grounds for criminal prosecution of their authors, baselessly accusing journalists of lies and disinformation.
In our view, all of this does not allow these expert opinions to be considered as the main and sole "evidence" of guilt against our colleagues. Documents of similar quality were involved in cases against priests and believers nearly a century ago. Back then, they were also accused of threatening national security, but not in favor of Russia, rather in favor of "imperialists".
However, there are differences. Back then, NKVD personnel and their assistants worked for an ideology. According to the UOJ information, today's KSRIFE experts receive substantial sums – tens of thousands of hryvnias – for each expert opinion of theirs.
Nothing personal, just business. Right?
