Meanwhile, the Russian army has evidently lost the capacity to launch a large-scale offensive. Moscow’s current objective is to maintain control over the territory they presently hold, which includes Crimea. The robust Ukrainian resistance and Western aid prompted Russia to adjust its goals in response to the situation on the ground.

Tripkovic: Is the war in Ukraine a conflict between two different visions for the future of Orthodox Christianity?

Veljkovic: The Ukrainian church issue was resolved in accordance with previous models of inter-Orthodox relations. The Ukrainian aspiration for an independent church mirrors the aspirations of the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks. After establishing their national states during the 19th and 20th centuries, they too sought to have their own autocephalous churches within those newly formed countries. The Ukrainian church question aligns with previous models, asserting that each nation-state should also have its own autocephalous or national church. 

The nation-states in the Balkans were established through liberation and secession from the Ottoman Empire. During this historical process, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul couldn’t maintain canonical jurisdiction outside the empire’s borders, as political influence often extended through church jurisdiction. Today, we witness a similar situation in the relations between Russia and Ukraine. Russia was projecting its political influence in Ukraine through the Russian church. Given these circumstances, the Ukrainians had little choice but to fight for their church’s independence from the imperial influence of Russia, just as other Orthodox nations had done before them.

This is the historical reality of post-Byzantine Orthodoxy and it’s unfolding right before our eyes. It can be argued that the organization of the Orthodox Church is inherently local rather than national. I don’t dispute that. Honestly, I believe that, in practice, we are currently far from such a model. Its implementation would necessitate substantial reforms within the Orthodox Church, for which there is presently neither the readiness nor the energy.

The theological perspective of the conflict still needs to emerge. On one hand, we see a resolute determination within the Ukrainian nation to uphold Western values such as democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. On the other side, Russia has positioned itself against these values. Consequently, Orthodox Ukrainian theology may be more receptive to these principles, especially considering that during the Russian aggression, Ukrainians experienced firsthand the consequences of rejecting these ideals. I would hope to witness progress in this direction. It would position Ukraine as the potential future of Orthodox Christianity within a united Europe. 

Tripkovic: What does the future hold for Orthodox Christianity in Russia and Ukraine? Once the war ends, what will be the role of Orthodox Christianity in the process of reconciliation between these two nations? Do you believe that Orthodoxy can help both sides overcome hatred and hostility?

Veljkovic: Throughout history, conflicts have arisen between Orthodox nations, such as the disputes between the Serbs and Bulgarians in the 19th and 20th centuries. In these conflicts, the role of the church was often notorious. Following the resolution of these conflicts, there was a noticeable absence of any concerted effort by the churches to engage in the reconciliation process. Even today, this topic is not addressed by both sides. 

The involvement of religious communities in the reconciliation process is a more recent development. Following the Yugoslav wars, there were initiatives to engage religious communities, including the Catholic Church in Croatia, the Islamic community in Bosnia, and the Serbian Orthodox Church, in the reconciliation process. However, these initiatives were primarily driven by non-governmental organizations rather than the religious communities themselves. This is why reconciliation efforts have yielded modest results.

The future of Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Christianity and their contribution to reconciliation depend on numerous factors. First, we are uncertain about how the war will conclude. I hope for Ukraine’s victory, given that they are the aggrieved party and did not provoke the conflict. The precise nature of this victory remains uncertain. I believe the future will be shaped by both parties’ willingness to confront the challenges ahead. For Ukraine, this means addressing nationalism, which must be marginalized within the framework of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The challenge for Russian Orthodox Christianity is even greater. The current Russian Patriarch Kirill openly promotes a false church tradition, known as the ideology of Holy Russia. His legacy must be rejected by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Relations between Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy will also hinge on the broader situation within the Orthodox Church. Specifically, it will depend on the resolution of the division between the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchates. Thus far, the Orthodox Church has proclaimed its unity more in words than in practice. Unfortunately, in reality, Orthodox churches are mostly self-sufficient.

Tripkovic: For years, President Putin branded himself as an Orthodox emperor, a legitimate successor of the Romanov dynasty, and protector of the faith. Do you think he has managed to maintain this image up to the present day.

Veljkovic: In the 19th century, Russian emperors aimed to position themselves as protectors of the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Such a policy was already anachronistic at that time. It often led to international conflicts. This anachronism stemmed from the fact that during the 19th century, Enlightenment ideas prevailed, and religion had lost much of the political influence it once held in previous centuries. None of the Orthodox countries recognized the Russian czar as the “protector of the faith.” This stands in stark contrast to the Middle Ages when the Byzantine emperor held such a status in Orthodox countries outside of Byzantium.

What does this concept mean today? Does it imply that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a protector of United States citizens who adhere to the Orthodox faith? These ideas are ridiculous and dangerous. President Putin represents an authoritarian, undemocratic form of government. Russia’s struggle to embrace democracy and achieve a peaceful, democratic transition of power has allowed radical ideas to gain traction. Authoritarian regimes often seek to rationalize their actions by promoting irrational political ideologies. I view the current efforts of the Russian authorities to portray themselves as defenders of Christianity from this perspective.

The separation of powers in the modern state, encompassing the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, aligns more closely with church teachings on the Holy Trinity. Modern states have an obligation to respect fundamental human rights, which precede the concept of the state and are not in contradiction with the Bible and the Holy Scriptures. It is important to remember that God created man, not the state. Given that man is prone to sin and the abuse of power, it is much wiser to have mechanisms in place to limit power. This is why, from a Christian perspective, liberal democracy with its principle of limited power is a far superior solution than authoritarian-Caesarism forms of government, which possess unlimited power and are prone to its abuse.

Tripkovic: In 2016, President Putin visited the Holy Mountain of Athos, an all-male monastic community in Greece. Some Orthodox theologians believe that during that visit he was crowned by Orthodox monks as an Orthodox emperor. What’s your take on that? 

Veljkovic: We would be trapped in a logical fallacy if we were to enter into an argument on this matter. Since there is no existing Orthodox empire, the notion of a coronation or anointing ceremony for an Orthodox emperor is unfounded. Engaging in such a debate would be a futile exercise. It’s important to recognize that the aim of these malevolent ideas is to manipulate Orthodox believers worldwide. It constitutes a form of pure manipulation that ultimately serves the dictatorial regime of Vladimir Putin.