Ban on UOC as political "splits" for Ukrainian authorities
The Ukrainian authorities are at a crossroads in the situation with the UOC. Banning it means facing sanctions. Not banning it means facing radicals. What will Bankova choose?
Over the past two years, starting with the first searches in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, we have witnessed an astonishing "epic" regarding the ban on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. With surprising regularity, statements emerge from the Verkhovna Rada and individual representatives of the Ukrainian political spectrum that "there is no place for the Moscow church in Ukraine." It constantly creates the impression that Law No. 8371 will be adopted soon, but... it still hasn't happened. Why?
President Zelensky and His Position
This situation demonstrates the classic political game called "splits". The Ukrainian authorities have put themselves in this position and are now actively looking for a way to change it.
We remember that before the elections, Zelensky repeatedly emphasized his non-religious stance and stated multiple times that he did not intend to interfere in church affairs, unlike his predecessor Petro Poroshenko. He wasn't afraid to say this not only to the Ukrainian voters but also to one of the initiators of the creation of the OCU – Patriarch Bartholomew. For example, during a meeting with the head of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2019, Zelensky said directly, "Our common value is human life. This is the main thing for me, especially now that I have become the President of Ukraine. The authorities should not interfere in church affairs; I will defend the independence of the Church."
This allowed Zelensky to distance himself from the church confrontation in Ukraine for a long time, as it was evident that playing against the UOC was a game on Poroshenko's side. Because in the fight against the Church, only Poroshenko won – he was the initiator of the Tomos, the OCU, and the ban on the canonical Church. This fact is so obvious that the ex-president's circle tries to downplay it. For example, a direct participant in the "Tomos story" Rostyslav Pavlenko literally defends that the project to ban the UOC is not beneficial to Poroshenko but "it benefits Ukraine – because it cuts off a powerful and 'most famous', speaking in the terminology of the article, tentacle of the 'Russian world'. Therefore, Poroshenko and the 'European Solidarity' support it," Pavlenko assures everyone who might doubt it.
Changing Rhetoric
In the President's Office, there were many such "oscillating". Even at the beginning of the war, Zelensky's inner circle expressed concerns that banning the UOC would provoke internal conflict. For example, Mykhailo Podolyak, commenting on the idea of banning the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, urged people not to speculate on religious topics. "I would ask that people not speculate on this because we could face an internal conflict, and the unity that Ukraine has demonstrated to the world today is much more fundamental and much more important." "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church will decide for itself how it will live in post-war Ukraine, because this will be fundamentally important for them," noted the advisor to the head of the President's Office in March 2022.
However, about six months after the war began, Zelensky and his entourage's rhetoric changed dramatically. First, there were statements about "collaborators in cassocks", followed by searches in Lavras, monasteries, dioceses, and then arrests of bishops and priests. Authorities at all levels started talking about the necessity of banning the UOC, dressing this step in a law to terminate the activities of religious organizations affiliated with Moscow. Even in this case, Zelensky had people who were categorically against what was happening.
For example, another advisor to the Presidential Office at the time, Oleksiy Arestovych, clearly explained that the issue of banning the UOC was extremely disadvantageous for the Ukrainian authorities: “Have you seen the headlines on Fox News when the SBU entered the Kyiv-Pechersk and other Lavras: ‘Zelensky declared war on Christianity’? Fox News is the main channel for the Republicans. Are these headlines good for Ukraine? Judging by the processes that are taking place there (in the UOC – Ed.), we need to win over to our side those who are for us and put severe pressure on those who are against Ukraine. Will we instead put pressure on all 6 million believers who go to this Church and who cannot say a word of Russian? They just go there because their grandparents would go there. Are they hence all enemies and agents?!” noted Arestovych.
The Presidential Office advisor added that such political technology definitely harms the state. “Do we seek a normal power or do we want to be idiots for the sake of a primitive splintering technology? This is political technology, not cultural policy. Everything is very simple: either we act like reasonable people or like idiots. So far we are acting like idiots,” said Arestovych in January 2023.
However, neither his words nor the words of the "early" Podolyak and Zelensky were heeded in the President's Office, and they began to actively promote the idea that the initiative to ban the UOC came from the president. The task is simple: to "push aside" Poroshenko so that the "laurels" of defeating the Church go to Zelensky. The president was simply misled that passing Law 8371 would benefit his political rating.
For instance, the head of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine's Committee on Humanitarian Policy, MP from the Servant of the People party, Mykyta Poturaiev, stated that when he met with Zelensky, the latter mentioned in the presence of witnesses that due to the difficult political situation, the law on banning the UOC needs to be brought to the session hall and quickly adopted. "The president's position (on the issue of banning the UOC), as far as I know, has not changed and remains unchanged. But I am aware that certain individuals came to the Office (of the President) from outside and tried to misinform the President: to lie to him that this law benefits 'European Solidarity'. However, Volodymyr Oleksandrovych is very adept at distinguishing lies from truth, and, as far as I know, this did not affect him in any way," concluded Poturaev.
He is echoed by the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Stefanchuk, who claims that as soon as the law is refined, it will immediately be brought to the session hall for voting.
Internal Contradictions
However, on the other hand, we see that the adoption of the law is becoming complicated. A source from the parliamentary monomajority, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained to Glavcom outlet why the Verkhovna Rada is not in a hurry to introduce bill 8371: "Danilov (former Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council), who promoted the ban on the UOC MP, is no longer here, the new Secretary of the Security Council has other priorities, Maliuk doesn't care, Poturaev from the Presidential Office has been pushed aside. Arakhamia explains to the President that there are no votes for this, Yermak is simply not enthusiastic about this idea. Moreover, launching another public schism of this magnitude is not certain to benefit Bankova Street."
The source also added that there is a strong belief within the monomajority that voting for this bill would increase the popularity of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his party 'European Solidarity'. "In other words, all accusations of 'persecuting Christianity' will be directed at Volodymyr Zelensky, while all achievements will be reaped by Petro Poroshenko. So why rush?" concluded the Glavcom interlocutor.
However, aside from purely political problems for the authorities, the ban on the UOC suggests an extremely serious prospect of international problems. No matter how much Poroshenko shouts that the late Michael Jackson advocated for the destruction of the canonical Church, living political and public figures in the United States clearly do not support this idea.
Lawyer Robert Amsterdam promised sanctions from the U.S. and other civilized countries in response to the adoption of the law banning the UOC. The seriousness of this prospect is confirmed by numerous statements from high-ranking U.S. officials, such as John Vance (possible US vice president), Kathryn Whiteford (leader of the Republican Youth Wing), and Tucker Carlson (one of the world's most popular journalists).
Moreover, a U.S. State Department report also indicated that the rights of believers are being violated in Ukraine, making the threat of sanctions very real. This is precisely why Ukrainian media write that for conservative Republicans, the ban on the UOC is a trigger point. "They have repeatedly sent signals to parliamentarians and the President's Office on this matter. So, we could lose aid if it continues this way," writes NV. The fact that this information is not fake was confirmed by Bezuhla, who said that a delegation of deputies is going to the U.S. to "settle the issue" with law 8371.
Is There a Way Out of the "Splits"?
According to MP Shevchenko, he does not see any desire from the country's top leadership to "push" the ban on the UOC. "The information about possible sanctions has shaken many people's willingness to vote. Many wavering individuals were swayed by lobbyists on the grounds of patriotism. They planned to rely on them to push through. But it seems the calculation did not pay off," the MP stated. According to him, the consideration of the bill has been postponed until the end of August, and it may not be put to a vote at all.
And here arises the notorious "splits". The authorities cannot simply abandon the ban on the UOC. Firstly, because for a long time, the President's Office has been fueling the Ukrainian public through the media, claiming that the UOC consists of traitors. Secondly, having relied on nationalists and pseudo-patriots, the authorities must show their willingness to go to the end – even to their own and the country's detriment. After all, right-wing radicals may consider the refusal to ban the UOC as "betrayal". And no one from Bankova wants to clash with them – there are plenty of other problems.
Thus, a situation arises where "honey is sweet, but the bee stings": on one side, some MPs (Poturaev, Stefanchuk, etc.) and the president's enemies (Poroshenko and right-wing radicals) are pushing for the law, while on the other side, representatives of the president's party are sabotaging its adoption due to fear of sanctions. In other words, the authorities ended up in a classic "splits", with two ways out: tear their pants (read – the country) or stretch out too hard for them to be able to stand up again.
Conclusion
Which path will the Bankova choose? It's hard to say with certainty. The authorities realize that the ban on the UOC is politically and strategically disadvantageous. However, backing out of this plan and reversing this course amid heightened public expectations is also extremely challenging. Yet, a decision must be made. And something tells us that Poroshenko and his company might be able to push their bill through, placing Zelensky and his entourage in a very unassuming position. More on this will be said in our next article.
