Open Democracy is a gutter site. When is the last time they published anything good about the canonical Russian Orthodox Church? They only write posts about its enemies. Whether it is the Paris Gang, whose only legitimacy is that it is under Constantinople, or an entirely unrecognised pseudo-Orthodox group, the perquisite for appearing on that site is that you must stand in opposition to Moscow Patriarchate...

We are going to here look at an article by Alexa Chopivsky, and we will start with the title:

Prayer and politics: Russia's pincer movement in Ukraine.  

Canonical Orthodoxy is a pincer. Ok, moving along...

As Washington and Moscow navigated the wake of a spy scandal, Kyiv was according Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill, travelling through Ukraine on an official "pastoral visit," a high-profile welcome more suitable for a rock star than the head of a millenium-old church, himself of pensionable age.  For the Kremlin, the visit was more about extending Russia’s political sphere of influence than spiritual piety.

How can you fit the spy scandal, and the Patriarch's welcome into one sentence? However what is more interesting is that correct faith is considered to be a projection of Kremlin's power. I do not know how that works. I guess going to a canonical Church makes you understand that the Russians and Ukrainians have common origins. There is also the danger that you may not hate Moskali. 

It is no wonder the author thinks like that, since Alexa is one of those moaners that cannot get over the failure of the Orange Farce. 

On his way to Kyiv, Kirill to the faithful in the Russia-friendly southern and eastern enclaves of Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk.  In the run-up to his arrival the Kyiv municipal authorities advised drivers to stay away from the city centre for the duration of his four-day stay and - in a move reflecting the failure of the Orange Revolution - banned protests for the duration of his visit.

Russia friendly? How about Orthodox, instead of pseudo-Orthodox? The author actually repeats 'the failure of the Orange Farce' line twice:

Since Yanukovych's election, Russia has been using religion to reassert its worldview over its former subject - a volte face after the Orange Revolution, when Viktor Yushchenko constantly taunted Moscow with scorn.

Let's face it, the failure of the Orange Farce is a more indicative of a broader failure of the Ukrainian state and its ideology. How do you maintain national cohesion in a country where one leader designates a historical figure as a hero and the leader after him revokes that decision? That indicates that in Ukraine there is a conflict of two narratives. We have one leader playing the Moskal'-hating card, while the other appeals to the Russia-friendly crowd. The world view Alexa means is the 'Russian world' idea, the anti-thesis of the Ukrainian nationalist view of Ukrainians being entirely separate from the Russians.

This is one of the reasons why the Rusyns of Subcarpathia get such a harsh treatment. They had since their first wave of national revival in the nineteenth century been Russophile and thought of themselves as part of the 'Russian world.' In fact the Galicians in the nineteenth century had called themselves Rusyns as well. I heard of a community in the Republic of Moldova, which has no relations to the people living around the Carpathians, that had been for years insulated and unimpacted by the Ukrainian nationalist ideology and still uses the term Rusyn. This is what makes Rusynism so dangerous to the Ukrainian nationalists.  

This homage to Pan-Slavism or, to call a spade a spade, neo-Russian imperialism is seeking to diminish Ukraine and Ukrainians' separateness and to legitimise a wider Russian sphere of influence.

The problem is that this so called 'Russian imperialism' does not originate from the Kremlin but from the masses. Some types might blame the resurgence of Rusynism in Transcarpathia in recent years on Russia but the reality is that the Rusyns do not seem to get much help from Russia, apart from moral support in the media. The Cossacks are defending churches and canonical Church dignitaries in Ukraine from nationalist freaks and heretics.

Speaking of heretics, the author shows true colours here:

When Ukraine gained independence in 1991, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church splintered from the Moscow Patriarchate and formed an independent branch under a new Kyiv Patriarch. This was seen by its adherents as a move to reinforce Ukraine's status of independent and sovereign state. Today, the 9-million-strong Moscow Patriarchate - which has never recognized the Kyiv Patriarchate  - is competing for its 14 million members. 

They have created a pseudo-Orthodox group where the so called Patriarch has the title 'Patriarch of all Rus'-Ukraine.' I do not know what exactly is Rus'-Ukraine supposed to mean, but can see that even Filaret is unable to do away with the concept of Rus'. Also notice how the author attempts to play the numbers game. Numbers do not translate into legitimacy.

...Kirill shunned any contact with the Kyiv Patriarchate.  A spokesman for Kirill commented, 'any collaborative effort with such an unrecognized entity is not possible.' 

His Holiness Kirill's words might sound harsh but they are true. Who recognises the so called Kiev Patriarchate? Does Constantinople recognise them? Does Antioch? Does Alexandria? Do the Georgians? Do the Serbs? Do the Czechs and the Slovaks? The answer is no, nobody except for similar ethnophiletist Churches recognise the Kiev Patriarchate. The Moscow Patriarchate can only enter talks with Kiev Patriarchate if the latter exercises repentance and acknowledgement of sin. That sin being heresy, it's pretty serious.