Russian Pillars In Place!

Dr. Myron Kuropas

The three pillars of Russian imperialism - autocracy, narodnichestvo, orthodoxy - are back in place.

Autocracy made a comeback with the ascension of Vladimir Putin, former KGB agent who in 2005 opined that the collapse of the Soviet Union “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century... Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen,” he complained, “found themselves beyond the fringes of our Russian territory”.  

Narodnichestvo, a peculiar brand of Russian nationalism, has been resurrected as well.  Responding in 2008 to President George W. Bush’s push for Ukraine’s EU membership, Mr. Putin said, “You don’t understand, George, Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine?  Part of its territories are in Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us.”     

In 2009, Mr. Putin referred to Ukraine as “Little Russia”, claiming that “Ukraine belongs to Russia... nobody should be permitted to interfere in relations between us”.  That same year, Moscow released a revisionist film version of Taras Bulba.  The producer declared that the film aimed to show that “there is no separate Ukraine.” 

Moscow was annoyed by Viktor Yushchenko’s Ukrainianism, and conspired to steal the 2005 election for Viktor Yanukovich.  It was a ham-fisted failure.  A far more sophisticated campaign was launched five years later, and this time Moscow succeeded. Today, President Yanukovich is happily de-Ukrainianizing his native land. 

The final pillar of Muscovite imperialism is Russian Orthodoxy.  Posturing as a pastor concerned with the spirituality of his flock, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill recently visited Ukraine.  During his visit, the Patriarch stated that Kyiv is “the Mother of all Russian cities,” and that “Ukrainians and Russians are really one and the same people”. 

I realize that many patriotic Ukrainians are members of the Russian Orthodox Church.  For me, however, the Russian Orthodox Church is a Trojan Horse in Ukraine.  President Yanukovich is a member of that Church which probably explains why he consistently shuns religious leaders from other faith expressions in Ukraine.

Ukrainian Orthodox Kyiv Patriarch Filaret understands what is going on. On January 30, he decried the blatant efforts of the Muscovite Church to subvert Ukrainian Orthodoxy.  “They want to liquidate the Kyiv Patriarchate before summer,” he said. “In regions of Ukraine, representatives of the government or priests of the Moscow Patriarchate hold talks with our priests”, offering “support and help.”  It was Kirill’s close associate, the Oxford-educated, multilingual, young Metropolitan Hilarion, who travelled  Eastern Ukraine urging Ukrainian Orthodox clergy to return to the “canonic church of Moscow.”

Another faith expression that has been a problem for Moscow has been the Ukrainian Catholic Church, established by a breakaway group of Ukrainian Orthodox bishops in 1595.  Recognized by the Vatican as an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has survived centuries of persecution by Polish Catholic and Russian Orthodox prelates and priests.  Even the Soviets were once threatened by its existence.  Having obliterated the nascent Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church headed by Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky in the 1930s, the Soviets went after the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Lviv soon after their invasion of Western Ukraine in 1940.  Ukrainian bishops were imprisoned and a rump conclave of Ukrainian Catholic priests “voted” in 1941 to renounce their faith and convert to Orthodoxy.  In the forefront of this effort was Russian Patriarch Alexeii I, head of the Soviet Council of Religious Affairs.

Ukrainian priests who did not succumb to the Soviet-Russian line were sent to the Gulag, and the Ukrainian Catholic Church became an underground, illegal church, producing many martyrs willing to die for their faith. Thirty of them were beatified by Pope John Paul II during his visit to Ukraine in 2001.  Moscow Patriarch Alexeii II, of course, vehemently opposed the Pope’s visit.  Today, the Ukrainian Catholic Church, an authentic ethno-national institution, is thriving in Ukraine.

So how much support can Ukrainian Catholics expect from Pope Benedict XVI?  It’s hard to say. In 2006, on the anniversary of the infamous 1946 Soviet-induced Catholic “reunion” with Muscovy, the Pope sent a letter to Cardinal Husar condemning the “pseudo-synod” and praising the Ukrainian Catholic Church for continuing to “bear her own witness to the unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church of Christ.”  More recently, however, rumours have surfaced suggesting that the Roman Curia has resurrected the discredited policy of “ost-politik”, making nice-nice with the Russian Orthodox Church, all part of what is now called “the new evangelization”. The ubiquitous Metropolitan Hilarion has been spending much time in Rome, of late leading some European Catholic commentators to breathlessly hail these developments as the birth of a “holy alliance” between Rome and Moscow. 

 Cardinal Husar recently resigned his leadership post for health reasons.  Will Moscow now play a role in determining who his replacement will be?