UOC of Moscow Patriarchate intends to participate in elections. In the USA
Having overcome the initial shock triggered by the loss of privileges, the wave of hate, and the threat of a ban, the UOC MP successfully mobilized resources for influence on the US political agenda. Not only the Russian diplomatic machine is working on behalf of the UOC-MP now. Not only "Western experts" with Russian passports and Western theologians with a "Russian soul". The most expensive lobbyists lawyers, journalists, and politicians work for this confession. For them the question of the “support of Ukraine” (more precisely, refusing it) turned out to be a convenient pre-election boost.
The UN Security Council met for the third time this year at the request of the Russian Federation to consider the issue of "persecution of the canonical church" in Ukraine. On behalf of the UN, the report was made by Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ilze Brands Kehris. Her report did not contain anything fundamentally new - concern about inter-confessional tension, and cases of light physical violence. She also reminded that the UN is closely monitoring the trials of clerics and wants full accordance of this process with Ukrainian laws.
The participants of the meeting, as usual, were divided into two groups. Representatives of Western countries and Japan once again sharply criticized the representative of the Russian Federation, declaring that the main problem of the Ukrainian church (as well as Ukraine in general) is Russia and the war initiated by the Russian president. Representatives of the Global South limited themselves to recommendations “to keep the peace and order” and protested against the destruction of churches.
Everything in general looked like one more page in the never-ending story of the UN’s "deep concerns". Pretty much useless for everyone involved.
But the Russian Federation is not calling the Security Council just to get the chance to listen to a stream of bitter truths about itself, or even to remind the Russians that they too have some specific support in the world. At this meeting, the Russian Federation pursued at least two other goals.
The first one was presented by a speaker from the Russian Federation, Vakhtang Kipshidze. The very fact of the participation of this particular person — an official representative of the Moscow Patriarchate and a distinctive Ukrainophobe — is interesting. The key in his speech was only one phrase: "The first step to peace in Ukraine is to stop the persecution of the UOC."
It is improbable that such statements were made merely for rhetorical impact. Apparently, the Kremlin has already delineated specific requirements for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. The UOC MP is poised to play an integral role within the framework of this agreement.
In the Kyiv Metropolia of UOC MP knows about it. Their position now is to play the time (as well as obtain the maximum of the money from sponsors for information and lobbying campaigns) in anticipation of the moment when the Ukrainian authorities will be forced to retreat and give them rest. Moscow's patronage of this confession, as well as the lies of the UOC MP representatives about their "complete independence" from Moscow, have never been so evident and cynical.
The second goal of the Kremlin was to convene the UN Security Council for the third time in a year because the "persecution of the UOC-MP" had a media character. Despite all the practical helplessness, the UN Security Council continues to be a news-maker. For the "talking heads" from the Republican Party of the USA, the Security Council is quite suitable as an "important source", its reports and assessments can be relied on as independent and respectable opinions. The report of Ilze Brands Kehris provides enough material to talk about the violation of freedom of conscience in Ukraine. Real and fictional ones. Everyone knows that in Russia you can get five to seven years in prison for belonging to Jehovah's Witnesses. And in Ukraine, for belonging to the UOC MP, priests can lose a church, if the flock is tired of remembering "our Lord and Father Cyril" during services. But yes, both facts are violations, no doubt.
The "persecution of the church" by the Ukrainian authorities became a battering ram that the far-right Republicans set in motion. It serves as the justification for blocking aid to Ukraine now and will be mentioned repeatedly during the debates concerning additional funding that will pass in Congress between Thanksgiving and Christmas. These arguments will be constantly used during the Republican primaries.
Lobbyists, whose services cost one and a half thousand dollars per hour, gladly take up the task of defending "canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine" (it's quite difficult to explain why the "persecuted church" from the war-torn country has such financial opportunities). Respectable newspapers publish articles condemning the "banning of the church" as an unforgivable sin against democracy and the doctrine of human rights. The choice of words sometimes speaks for itself: unforgivable actions call for punishment. In our case, such a "punishment" can (or should?) be the end of the USA's support to Ukraine in the war against the Russian Federation.
Now the Biden administration has a reason to be nervous: the US Commission on International Religious Freedom is studying the issue — it asked the Ukrainian State Department for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, as well as Ukraine's ambassador to the US, Oksana Markarova, for clarifications. I do not know if the Commission was satisfied with the answers of Ukrainian officials. Comments to the press (published in the "Voice of America") were as follows: the Commission expressed "understanding" of the situation in Ukraine, but reminded Ukrainian authorities that the laws adopted by Ukraine should not affect the interests of believers. Translation from diplomatic language to a more casual one looks like this: draft anti-UOC-MP law in the Ukrainian parliament (like the entire anti-UOC MP program of the Ukrainian government) can become (or has already become) a great problem for those who support Ukraine in the USA.
The Ukrainian authorities actually failed the campaign against the Moscow Church in Ukraine. It becomes quite clear that the authorities have neither a strategy nor even a plan B. There are doubts that the Office of the President in general has the will to solve the problem of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine once and for all. The OP carried out its attack against the UOC MP in the usual manner — a war in the media field, waves of hype, and chaotic visits of law enforcement officers to representatives of the UOC MP.
Maybe this is a winning strategy for dealing with oligarchs and political rivals. But not to fight against institutions deeply rooted in society, whose popularity at the community level is really great. Actually, UOC MP is part of the self-identification of quite a number of Ukrainians. One can upload pictures of half-naked choristers to the network, find pro-Russian St. George's ribbons and portraits of Patriarch Kirill in churches, and write about rich Moscow priests on Twitter and fences. You can sing about it. And maybe even dance - like in an Indian movie. But if you remove all the media hype, the government's campaign against the UOC-MP has so far brought nothing but problems for the government. And for Ukraine. In reality, the connections of this denomination with Moscow remain functional, and the role of the UOC MP in the media space — especially the Western one — continues to be defined in Lubyanka, in Russian FSB headquarters.