Sad to say, we have come to expect attacks on the Orthodox Faith in many areas of the world. Taybeh, a peaceful Christian village in the West Bank, has been repeatedly attacked by Zionist settlers. Both Christian Churches in Gaza, Orthodox and Roman Catholic, have been attacked with fatalities. Syria is a killing zone for Christians, Druze, and Alawites. The regime in Kiev continues its campaign against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In Nigeria, 200 Christian villagers were slaughtered by heavily armed Fulani jihadists in July 2025. This is just the latest massacre. All across Africa, Asia, Ukraine, and the Middle East Christians, and Christianity, are attacked, maligned, and silenced.
But anti-Christian slander in Sweden? Multicultural, friendly, innocuous Sweden? Unfortunately, yes.
A Swedish public broadcast (SVT) presenter named Laura Ukaj has compared the Orthodox Christian blessing gesture – the three-finger sign representing the Holy Trinity – to a Nazi salute, stating: “It’s the same as hailing Hitler.”
This statement is not only offensive and incorrect, but potentially extremely dangerous. In the modern world, labeling a group of people as “Hitler” is the same as proclaiming them evil incarnate. Persecution (sometimes violent) frequently follows such inflammatory remarks. Worse. The people carrying out the persecution feel absolutely justified in doing so. As pointed out in our article on The Open Society:
If it’s assumed that the only options are “the open society or Auschwitz” then maintaining zero tolerance for the perceived values of the closed society is functionally a moral commandment.
Orthodoxy is frequently correlated with so-called “strong gods” which are actually necessary to hold societies together: strong truth claims, strong moral codes, strong relational bonds, strong communal identities and connections to place and past. These are “closed society” values which, according to the post-war consensus, risk bringing back Hitler. Only “open society” values such as unlimited immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, secularization, sexual liberation, etc. are permissible lest we resurrect the Führer from his grave.
Orthodox Christians cannot let this pass. Orthodoxy is not only incompatible with NAZI ideology, but also millions of faithful Orthodox Christians died to defeat it. This slander, and others like it, is nothing more than an attempt to turn average people against the Orthodox Church, which far too many of them simply do not understand.
To defend the Orthodox Faith, Tijana Ivkovića has organized a petition, now with 500 signatures, asking SVT to distance itself from this statement and end all collaboration with the presenter, Laura Ukaj.
So far, SVT has refused to respond. However, this is the kind of issue in which petitions can be very effective. Media companies do not like negative publicity. Let’s give them more than they can handle.
Sign the petition here: https://chng.it/Yf78vnymfV
For further context, documentation, and direct testimony, please contact petition initiator Tijana Ivković at [email protected].
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89322-patronal-feast-with-his-holiness
2 December 2025
Patronal Feast with His Holiness
When the supernatural is placed at the service of political expediency.
The Greek branch of the UOJ has published an archival article by priest and theologian Anastasios Gotsopoulos, written on December 1, 2014. It concerns the events that took place during the visit of then-Pope Francis on the Patronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The article also contains a reference to an earlier visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Constantinople.
“Unfortunately, what is described in the article published eleven years ago remains relevant, because this year, during the visit of Pope Leo XIV to Constantinople on the Feast Day of St. Andrew, the same things occurred as in 2006 and in 2014,” the editorial board of the Greek branch of UOJ writes.
When the supernatural sacrament is used to serve expediency…We have once again witnessed what took place at Saint George’s Church in Constantinople on the Feast Day of Saint Andrew (November 29–30, 2014). and, apparently, we will see it again and again so that we gradually become accustomed and, without resistance, move toward the restoration, as His Holiness put it, of “full communion” with the “primatial sister Church of Rome,” “presiding in love” if we refer to the Fathers.
The fact that this tempts some of our Orthodox brothers does not concern us too much: we easily label them “fanatics,” “fundamentalists,” “provincials,” mock them and that is enough for us. Especially since we have allies in this endeavor – the media and politicians of all stripes, who are undoubtedly interested in the care of Bartholomew and Francis for the “restoration of the Temple of God, that is, the Church,” as revealed to us by the “brother, Bishop of Rome” Francis!
I will not analyze the words about “full communion” spoken by the Ecumenical Patriarch. A profound theological text, “The New Ecclesiology of Patriarch Bartholomew”, has already appeared, pointing to serious deviations from the faith. But does anyone doubt that the Patriarch’s address to the Pope on Saturday, November 29, 2014, in the Patriarchal Church signifies full acceptance of the Dogmatic Constitution “On the Church” and the Decree “On Ecumenism” of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)?
“Brother” Francis went even further, explaining the thoughts of his “brother” Bartholomew and referring in considerable detail to the Decree “On Ecumenism”. As a true Jesuit, he naturally remained silent about another document of the same Council – the Decree “On the Eastern (Uniate) Churches”. Nevertheless, a careful listener can easily perceive that His Holiness has this in mind and is proposing precisely this model for the unification of Catholics and Orthodox Christians. It is no coincidence that Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, was present in his retinue…
I suppose that after all this, the Great Council of the Orthodox Church, if it ever takes place, should – on the recommendation of the relevant Chancery in Constantinople – recognize the Second Vatican Council as the Eighth Ecumenical Council! This is becoming an urgent necessity: some high-ranking Orthodox hierarchs need to acquire at least some consistency and ecclesiological justification, which the Seven Ecumenical Councils – outdated, as practice shows – fail to provide.
Since the “Patronal Feast with His Holiness” has already been performed in the same settings, I will turn to my archive, to what happened in the same place in 2006. At that time, I wrote:
“The described practice [of joint prayers] is applied not only within the framework of the World Council of Churches. Overall, a certain strange disregard for theology (especially ecclesiology) and the development of an ecumenical ‘ecclesiology,’ intended to ‘theologically’ justify anti-canonical behavior, combined with the introduction into church life of PR methods, have led to practices that leave a deep bitterness among the People of God. Particularly illustrative is what occurred during the last visit of the Pope to Constantinople for the Patronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 30, 2006. This is not about meetings and events outside the Patriarchal Church of Saint George – conversations, joint statements, greetings from the balcony – but about what took place inside the church, going beyond a simple joint prayer with the non-Orthodox.
The Pontiff is greeted with the words: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
Of course, at a meeting, the head of the Roman Catholic Church will be called the “Pope and Bishop of Rome” although, strictly speaking theologically, these titles do not belong to him, since he is a heretic. Both titles are used here as technical terms or polite forms of address for the guest, without theological or ecclesiological significance. In the same sense, non-Orthodox communities are referred to as “Churches” but not in the strict ecclesiological sense, for the Catholic Church was, is, and will remain one. In church tradition, alongside precision, there exist courtesy and economy: Saint Cyril, sharply condemning Nestorius for his errors, still addressed him as “honorable,” “most honorable,” “most pious bishop,” and called him “Your Holiness”.
However, it is an entirely different matter to sing hymns and commemorate a heretic as the canonical Pope and Bishop of Rome during a service in the Patriarchal Church, on an equal footing with the Patriarch of Constantinople!
From simple joint prayer to concelebrationUnfortunately, the joint prayer in Constantinople did not remain a simple act of supplication but grew into an incomplete concelebration. At the official Patriarchal and Synodal Divine Liturgy of the Patronal Feast, the Pope was granted the right to recite the Lord’s Prayer; he was censed as a canonical bishop; and most importantly, he received from the Patriarch the liturgical kiss of peace before the Holy Anaphora and responded in kind. All of this is permitted only to concelebrating priests and hierarchs! He did not enter the Holy Altar – yet. He was even granted the ambo, and he took the opportunity to proclaim papal primacy in the very Patriarchal church!
We will allow ourselves a few questions.
– When serving with the Ecumenical Patriarch, if a cleric – whether a priest, bishop, or even the Primate of an Autocephalous Church – does not concelebrate but only prays in the Holy Altar, would the officiating Patriarch exchange the liturgical kiss of peace with him? Of course not: according to the liturgical order, it is permitted only between concelebrating clergy. So how, then, is it offered to the Pope? Does he concelebrate with the Patriarch?
– Is it permissible to use the liturgical kiss of peace, the highest moment of manifest unity in truth and love, contrary to liturgical tradition, reducing it to an act of social courtesy, emotional sentiment, or church politics?
– Is the liturgical kiss of peace a self-sufficient act, or a prerequisite for “confessing with one mind” the Trinitarian dogma as formulated in the Creed? If there is no confession of shared faith – as there is no shared theology – what meaning does the liturgical kiss have between an Orthodox hierarch and a heretical leader?
– Since when is a heretic permitted to pray at a service as a canonical Orthodox Christian?
– Can a heretic, much less the head of a heresy, represent the Orthodox faithful at the Divine Liturgy, reciting the Lord’s Prayer as their Primate?
– To say the “Our Father,” is unity of faith not required? Does such unity exist with the Pope?
– “Our Father” is the principal prayer, preparing the faithful for the “daily bread” of the Divine Eucharist. Can one who is categorically forbidden from receiving the Holy Gifts ask for this Bread during a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Orthodox Christians? What meaning can such a prayer have?
– If the Pope did not merely attend but actively participated in the Divine Liturgy, why was he ultimately not admitted to Communion? Some might answer: the statutes of our Church do not permit it, since he is of another faith. But was everything else he did truly permissible?
– How does all this align with the clear position of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: “Communion in the sacraments is not permissible until full unity in faith is achieved… The path to unity through Eucharistic communion is a step backwards… Eucharistic communion without unity of faith is like banknotes without gold backing”? Or does “communion in the Sacraments” refer only to the moment of Holy Communion, and not to the entire Divine Liturgy of the faithful? Is such a theological partitioning of the Liturgy permissible?
– What can be said about granting the ambo to the head of heresy for preaching? Can we, as Orthodox, remain indifferent, untroubled, or unmoved when, in the Most Holy Patriarchal Church, the Pope preaches papal primacy with his head uncovered? From the pulpit of Saints Alexander, Gregory, John Chrysostom, Photius, and Philotheos, error is proclaimed! Is this not a desecration?
– Finally, should we not, with all due reverence, ask the presiding hierarch of that Divine Liturgy:
Can one tolerate and justify the above as “noble conduct” or mere “formal expressions during the service”?
Or, perhaps, this could be excused by oikonomia? Is even a partial concelebration of the Pope and the Patriarch permitted under oikonomia? The answer is categorical: no! Never, anywhere, has any saint allowed a condemned heretic, much less the head of a heresy, stubborn in error, to actively participate in the Divine Liturgy.
And what irresistible necessity demanded a “concelebration” with the Pontiff? For what “higher attainment,” unattainable by other means, was the ecclesiastical order violated? Ultimately, what benefit for the Church could justify praying together with the Pope? Thus, there exists not a single condition under which oikonomia could legitimize the Pontiff’s active participation in an Orthodox service.
Moreover, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken explicitly about “Eucharistic communion” with the non-Orthodox:
“This question is essentially ecclesiological, and for the sake of ecumenical dialogue, it would be appropriate and useful to state unambiguously… that the Eucharistic communion sought by some between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians amid the ongoing schism cannot be accepted by the Orthodox Church, even under oikonomia.”
And, of course, “Eucharistic communion” does not begin with the words “approach with the fear of God, with faith and love” and does not end with “Save, O God, Your people”…
Or, applying this to contemporary practice, one might echo the Athonite monks: “But are we to do this under the guise of oikonomia? And how can oikonomia permit the desecration of the sanctuary? …And what could be more ruinous than such an ‘oikonomia’? It is clear communion with them, an abandonment of all good, and a subversion. For he who receives a heretic is subject to his accusations, and he who communes with the excommunicated is himself excommunicated, as one who violates the canon of the Church.”
This concern is by no means caused by “stubborn false brothers, forming groups of fanatical defenders of the so-called foundations, captives largely of religious unbelief, neo-Manichean fundamentalism, projected metaphysical guilt, and a casual approach to living like sectarians, peddlers of ‘pure religion’”. (How sad it is to hear such characterizations from an Orthodox hierarch in the presence of the Patriarch, delegations of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and non-Orthodox on the Patriarchate’s Feast Day, indiscriminately thrown at all believers who maintain any reservations regarding dialogues!) On the contrary, these practices are condemned even by the proponents of inter-Christian dialogue and the ecumenical movement themselves as theologically unfounded and ultimately undermining the very basis of theological dialogue.
Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia, a hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and for twenty years co-chair of the Official Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholics, mentions in his speech of May 10, 1985, the “tragic errors”:
“First of all, an excessive friendliness with Rome prevailed, expressed irresponsibly and theologically completely unchecked… Many hierarchs, unfortunately, hurry to embrace at the most sacred moment of the Divine Eucharist, when we proclaim ‘let us love one another…’. This is the moment when we express the highest and deepest unity only of those who are concelebrating.
Ministers are not permitted even to kiss co-faithful hierarchs and clerics present in the Holy Altar. Nevertheless, there are Orthodox hierarchs, whose names I will not mention, who, well-intentioned but unaware of the weight of theological responsibility, kiss non-Orthodox clerics, although this has no sacramental grounding and is done irresponsibly: from the common Chalice they will not receive Communion. So why kiss them at all?
Another error, no less tragic: in an effort to be polite to one another, many Orthodox hierarchs, unfortunately, call the Pope “the first bishop of Christianity”. This is yet another theological falsehood. The Pope… in divided Christendom is neither first among equals nor even equal among equals! The Pope should stand after the last Orthodox bishop, as he now remains in schism and heresy. This is so obvious that it hardly needs stating… The Roman Throne in its present state cannot, according to Orthodox theology, be called “presiding in love”. When such things are said, they are irresponsible words. Regrettably, they stir up much fuss and inflict harm, all the while providing us with no tangible gain. In this way, we give the impression that we are hastening to establish Intercommunio, Eucharistic communion with the non-Orthodox… By addressing the Pope or Rome with patristic titles full of specific meaning, we only undermine the dialogue and offer it no support. This is simply a lie – such forms of address are a theological falsehood.”
In this context, it is worth noting a particularly significant address by the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou, Archimandrite Joseph, during Patriarch Bartholomew’s visit to the monastery on August 21, 2008. The Abbot spoke, with due reverence but also exceptional clarity:
“Here, Your Holiness, allow us, your children, who approach you with filial boldness, to speak on two matters that trouble our hearts and tempt our monastic consciences, as well as the consciences of very many devout Orthodox Christians who turn to us.
The first matter concerns the ongoing recognition by Your Holiness – through official speeches and joint prayers in church and on television – of representatives of a thoroughly secularized and unrepentant modern papism.
Your Holiness, together with Saint John Chrysostom, we, humble and unworthy, beseech You: ‘Do not accept any foreign dogma under the pretext of love.’ Both recently and in earlier times, Holy Mount Athos has testified and assured You, and we, the miserable monks of Xeropotamou, together with the devout faithful who share our concerns, ‘remain faithful to the faith of the holy Apostles and holy Fathers, out of love also for the heterodox, to whom it is truly helpful when the Orthodox, by maintaining a consistent Orthodox stance, point out the extent of their spiritual illness and the way to its healing.” We earnestly and reverently request that henceforth “the theological dialogue be in no way accompanied by joint prayers, participation in liturgical and worship gatherings of one another, or other actions that could create the impression that our Orthodox Church recognizes Roman Catholics as a full Church, and the Pope as the canonical Bishop of Rome. Such actions mislead both the fullness of Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholics, creating in them a false impression of what Orthodoxy thinks of them…” Since we cannot deny that we share “the same spirit of faith” with Your Most Divine Holiness, “as it is written: I believed, therefore I spoke”, so “we also believe, therefore we speak…” In Your fatherly love, forgive us this confessional digression and look upon the faces of our humble brotherhood, which regards You with the greatest reverence.”
In his response, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not consider the concerns exaggerated or malicious and even praised the abbot for his words and his concern, and “reassured” him: “We commend your sensitivity, we commend in a fatherly way your love of truth and sincerity, and we reassure you, briefly repeating: the guardians are aware.”
Of course, it would be better if such “patriarchal” assurances were not needed to “reassure” us. Who bears responsibility for the fact that part of the Orthodox faithful is concerned about the “guardians” and has the gravest reservations regarding some of their actions? Are the “guardians” themselves truly not accountable for this situation?
P.S. Some may think that I am right, yet consider my words too “harsh” or “disrespectful.” However, I would ask such people, together with their remarks about the “harshness” or “disrespectfulness” of my words, to also present their own proper, respectful protest against that which is ecclesiologically and canonically unacceptable and which again occurred in Constantinople on 29–30 November 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJWdtk2Gxv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJie5DwEjY&t=7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ3dhfxx29Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsoySF4lDWI&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/azREHaq9ve8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy7lH_EG68E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJGvZHOhoM4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-Vo-04e_c&t=60s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ti9_PRGbXc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEYV1zPaK7Q&t=4s
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89097-cases-of-metropolitan-arseniy-and-mindich-a-tale-of-two-justices
Metropolitan Arseniy and “Mindichgate”: A Tale of Two Justices
18 November 2025
When corrupt officials are granted bail, but a bishop remains behind bars, the world should be asking: for whom does the law in Ukraine actually work?
On 18 November 2025, another court hearing is scheduled for His Eminence Metropolitan Arseniy of Sviatohirsk to consider a change of pre-trial restraint. In simple terms – judges once again have the opportunity to release him from unlawful detention. At the time of publication, the outcome of the hearing is unknown, but given the current reality, hopes for the bishop’s release are slim.
On 28 October 2025, after a year and a half behind bars, Metropolitan Arseniy was finally granted release on bail of 1.5 million hryvnias. Yet this decision turned into a tragic parody of justice: he was released for literally a few minutes – only to be immediately rearrested on new charges. The court then sent him back to detention, but this time “without the right to post bail.”
It is worth recalling that the bishop is being kept in extremely harsh conditions. The cells in the detention center are freezing. Moreover, he is severely ill and urgently needs heart surgery. He has no access to adequate medical care or even the necessary medication – a dangerous situation for someone with chronic illnesses and rapidly deteriorating health. During one recent hearing, his blood pressure spiked to 200/110, and hospitalization was required. Yet the court demanded that he be returned to his cell, refusing any form of bail.
Even if this were about a serious criminal, such treatment could hardly be called humane. All the more so when it concerns a clergyman who has committed no crime and who has spent years serving the Ukrainian people.
The humanitarian mission of Sviatohirsk LavraThroughout the war, Sviatohirsk Lavra has played a vital humanitarian role – and not in words, but in real, tangible assistance.
The monastery has become a place where thousands of refugees and war-affected civilians receive food, essentials and, for hundreds, shelter and safety.
In just the past several months alone, the Lavra has received hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid from various UOC eparchies. This help is indispensable – the Lavra has long become a haven for displaced people from all across Donbas. The monastery shelters refugees, provides them with housing and food, and supports volunteers whose work is centered around the Lavra.
All of this is concrete aid to the suffering people of Ukraine – people abandoned by the state and left on the brink of survival. And such help is especially precious during wartime.
“Mindichgate”To fully understand the contrast, one must grasp the scale of the corruption scheme uncovered by law enforcement – the scheme investigators named “Operation Midas.” It is directly linked to the state enterprise Energoatom and to one of President Zelensky’s closest associates, Timur Mindich.
According to NABU and SAPO, the mechanics of the scheme were straightforward:
• Contractors seeking to work with Energoatom were required to pay 10–15% kickbacks. Those who refused were threatened with blocked payments or removal from the supplier list.
• Procurement and staffing were controlled not by official Energoatom managers but by shadow figures – insiders with no formal positions who ran the business through a “back office.”
• Money flowed through a sophisticated network of cash, foreign accounts, cryptocurrency and offshore structures.
• Part of the scheme operated abroad, including transactions linked to the United States, Moscow and other jurisdictions.
• NABU described the group as a “high-level criminal organization” with serious influence over a strategic enterprise and the national energy sector.
According to investigators, the criminal network stole at least 100 million dollars – and likely far more, as NABU hinted. And this entire scheme operated under martial law, which gave the perpetrators even more opportunity.
Even the most indifferent observer understands what this means: members of this group, who enriched themselves on money meant for protecting ordinary citizens, are nothing short of marauders. Accordingly, they should be punished with the full severity of the law.
But as we will see – reality is quite different.
Bail and the release of the suspectsOn 13 November 2025, the High Anti-Corruption Court granted bail to two members of Mindich’s “back office”:
Lesia Ustymenko (bail of 25 million UAH) and Liudmyla Zorina (bail of 12 million UAH).
Almost immediately, a company with a charter capital of just 1,000 hryvnias (20 dollars) appeared and posted the 37 million hryvnias required. As a result, Ustymenko and Zorina walked free within twenty-four hours.
Formally, they face restrictions – electronic bracelets, a ban on leaving the country, and a prohibition on leaving Kyiv region without permission. But the key point is: they are free.
People implicated in massive wartime looting can now live comfortably and prepare their defense. This starkly illustrates that Ukrainian justice easily releases those involved in major corruption schemes, yet keeps a clergyman – a man who has dedicated his life to helping people – behind bars for years.
The striking contrastWe are not exaggerating; we are stating the obvious: comparing Metropolitan Arseniy’s case and the Mindich case reveals the moral choices Ukraine’s state and judicial system are making.
Metropolitan Arseniy remains in pre-trial detention, denied bail, while those who stole millions enjoy freedom under minimal supervision and can prepare their defense.
Meanwhile, Sviatohirsk Lavra continues to be a refuge for the displaced – a center of mercy in a region abandoned by the state. Even as the government turns its back on people, the Lavra continues to help them. The corruption group, by contrast, drained resources from the state, likely depriving Ukrainians of the most basic necessities – light and heat.
This is why the contrast between these two cases, these two approaches, speaks louder about the moral character of “statesmen” than any thousand words ever could.
Freedom of religion?Today’s Ukraine is a country where one can easily end up behind bars simply for preaching or for performing the duties of a priest. Being a believer is dangerous – not only physically, but legally. Belonging to the Church is now a real reason for persecution. Such developments should ring alarm bells among our “Western partners.”
Likewise, we – ordinary believers – cannot remain passive. In addition to prayer, we must organize and support the legal defense of the Church, thoroughly publicize all violations of our rights and freedoms. We must defend ourselves – trusting in God’s help and acting within the law.
Because when an Orthodox hierarch who has devoted his life to serving God and people is imprisoned, while corrupt officials walk free, then remaining silent is as much a crime as covering for those who steal from their own nation.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/z4gyWuAkKcs
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s24h6Zt1K4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCztmPEAVk&t=15s
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t9qMF8AnL5M
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LKBGgmjQmeE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ti9_PRGbXc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEYV1zPaK7Q&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvcN2TM0MVw&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXfW5oqD8Zs
https://spzh.eu/en/news/89021-novynskyi-zelensky-has-no-moral-right-to-remain-president
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/88895-when-conscience-of-nation-is-put-on-pause-or-why-the-righteous-must-suffer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6WV2oNOCg
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89034-zelensky-style-sanctions-mindich-case-vs-uoj-case
Zelensky-style sanctions: “Mindich case” vs. “UOJ case”
13 November 2025
10 years of sanctions for journalists for criticizing the authorities and 3 years for corrupt officials for stealing millions. A story about who and how is punished in modern Ukraine.
At the end of October 2025, an event occurred in Ukraine that cannot but alarm everyone who values freedom of speech and religion. President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a decree imposing sanctions against journalists and editors of the Union of Orthodox Journalists and the “First Cossack” project.
These people are neither officials, oligarchs, nor corrupt individuals. Their only “crime” is covering events surrounding the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Previously, criminal cases had already been initiated against them on charges of treason with the threat of life imprisonment. Now, sanctions for 10 years have followed: asset seizure, a ban on any financial operations, movement within Ukraine, use of phones, and more.
And literally a few days after this, the world was shocked by the largest corruption scandal in Ukraine in recent years. The figures in this scandal included not only ministers of the country’s top leadership but also Zelensky’s closest friends from “Kvartal 95”. These people were stealing money intended for the energy sector, and possibly Ukraine’s defense capability. The NABU showed bundles of dollars found during searches, still sealed in American banks. There is no doubt that this is money the country received as aid from Western partners.
On November 13, Zelensky imposed sanctions against the corrupt individuals who, according to the investigation, stole more than 100 million dollars. Logic suggests: the theft of hundreds of millions during wartime is a real crime against the country. Unlike journalists who simply wrote the truth about the Church.
However, the sanctions against the corruptionists turned out to be purely symbolic. What is happening?
Sanctions against journalists: freedom of speech under threat
On October 31, 2025, Zelensky enacted the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) on personal sanctions against individuals related to the activities of the Union of Orthodox Journalists (UOJ) and the resource “First Cossack”.
Considering that this punishment was applied to people whose only crime was to show how the authorities violate freedom of speech and the rights of believers in Ukraine, it can be called unprecedented.
In particular, the sanctions include:
blocking of accounts and assets;a ban on media distribution in Ukraine;termination of electronic communication services (phone and Internet);restriction of trade operations;blocking of UOJ websites and social networks.Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is instructed to inform the European Union and the USA about these measures so that they “take an example” and introduce similar restrictions.
In other words, journalists who defend the canonical Church have been officially equated by the Ukrainian authorities with high-level enemies of the state, and it has been declared that their activities pose a threat to national security. None of them surrendered the positions of the Armed Forces, committed fraud on “humanitarian aid”, or demanded kickbacks for making decisions. All their “weapons” are a computer, camera, and phone. All the materials they published and continue to publish are in open access (to this day), and anyone can visit the UOJ website or social networks to personally see the full extent of their “crimes”. Believe me, you will not find anything more seditious than reasoned criticism of the OCU there.
Who is stealing millions?Meanwhile, a scandal is unfolding in Kyiv, already dubbed “Mindichgate” in the media.
According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Zelensky’s close friend and associate, Timur Mindich, co-owner of the “Kvartal 95” studio, is accused of leading a corruption scheme in the energy sector. The scheme included kickbacks of up to 15% from contracts of the largest state enterprise “Energoatom”.
We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars – money that was supposed to go to modernize energy and strengthen the country’s defense capability during the war.
Along with Mindich, businessman Oleksandr Tsukerman, also close to the presidential circle, is involved in the investigation. Both, according to press reports, were warned and managed to leave Ukraine before the searches began. At the same time, ministers of justice, energy, a former deputy prime minister, and possibly other high-ranking officials may be involved in the scheme.
The Ukrainian government proposed imposing sanctions against Mindich and Tsukerman for ten years. However, by Zelensky’s decree, these sanctions were approved for only three years.
It is also interesting that in the sanction document, Mindich and Tsukerman are listed as citizens of Israel, not Ukraine. In other words, Zelensky imposes sanctions against citizens of another state. And this hides a special cynicism. For several reasons:
1. Just two days ago, the head of the State Border Service stated that Mindich officially left Ukraine, “because he has three children under the age of 18”. But if he is a citizen of Israel, why does he need children to leave? He could easily leave with an Israeli passport. And here – one of two things: either the border service does not know which passport Mindich used to leave, or Ukrainians are being misled.
2. If sanctions are imposed on “Israeli citizen Mindich”, then which Mindich falls under the restrictions – the Ukrainian businessman or some Israeli with an identical surname?
3. Most importantly, the imposition of sanctions against Israeli citizens Mindich and Tsukerman allows Ukrainian citizens Mindich and Tsukerman (against whom sanctions were not imposed) to freely dispose of property, accounts, and assets in Ukraine.
That is, in relation to the UOJ, measures of a complete ban for 10 years were applied. But in relation to Mindich and Tsukerman, sanctions were imposed for three years, and as citizens of Ukraine, they are practically not restricted in anything.
And this despite the fact that the motive for imposing sanctions against the UOJ boils down to unproven and vague accusations of “propaganda”, ties with the UOC, and possible ties with Russia (which do not exist). While the corruptionits are accused of embezzling funds from Ukraine’s allies and laundering money on a particularly large scale. A separate “cherry on top” is a phrase said by one of the accused and contained in the case materials: “Two million (dollars?) went to Moscow”.
That is why this situation looks extremely cynical.
How is “Kvartal 95” different from the UOC?Despite all this, Mindich and Zelensky are connected by many years of joint work in “Kvartal 95” – a comedy project from which the career of the current President began.
When the scandal broke out, the “Kvartal” studio hastened to declare that Mindich (despite the fact that he actually owns the project), “has a legal connection with the Studio, but does not participate in its activities and does not influence the content or decision of the team”.
Agree, in these words one cannot help but notice a certain irony of fate. Because similar words, about “canonical connection” (not even legal), and lack of influence, have been repeated for many years by representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the context of relations with the ROC.
However, when it comes to the Church, Zelensky and his entourage constantly claim the opposite. UOC believers are accused of “ties with Moscow”, on the basis of which monasteries are closed, monks are expelled, and sanctions are imposed on journalists. And only when it comes to the president’s personal friends does a completely different logic suddenly appear: “Yes, there is a legal connection, but we are not responsible”.
It is clear that if the accusations made against the UOC were voiced against “Kvartal”, then “Kvartal 95” would have to be closed, and sanctions would have to be imposed against all its participants. Just as the Parliament of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers, and, most importantly, the NSDC – three representatives of which, led by Umarov, are featured on the “Mindich tapes” – should be dissolved.
Probably just because “it’s different”.
Conclusions
It is clear to everyone that the sanctions against journalists defending the UOC look like a tool of political revenge. While the sanctions against the corrupt from Zelensky’s entourage are a crude imitation of justice.
At the same time, the first category consists of people who write about faith and the Church and avoid politics until politics begins to interfere in Church affairs. The second category includes those who profit from the war, from the tears and suffering of the Ukrainian people.
But only the first group has been declared a threat to national security.
For anyone who sincerely believes in democratic values and human rights, the situation should be clear: in a country that proudly calls itself the “outpost of democracy”, the journalists are punished for telling the truth, while the corrupt are protected. Apparently, words are feared more than missiles. And that’s no surprise. The words of Christ are quite applicable to the Ukrainian authorities: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.” (Matthew 23:25)
Let us remind the Ukrainian authorities, who claim to be striving toward Europe: freedom of religion and freedom of the press are not mere declarations for the West – they are the foundations of civilization. Their violation cannot go without consequences. “For nothing is hidden that will not be revealed.”
The UOJ journalists have committed no crimes – they have defended the Church of millions of Ukrainians. Yet they are subjected to the harshest sanctions. Meanwhile, officials who steal during wartime and commit lawlessness remain practically untouchable.
This is the true scale of the gap between Ukraine’s declarations of democracy and its actual practice.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2C7Smd-I5RQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t9qMF8AnL5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQVf__WPNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCztmPEAVk&t=16s
https://spzh.eu/en/news/88850-authorities-allow-metropolitan-arseniy-to-hold-his-first-service-in-15-years
Authorities allow Metropolitan Arseniy to hold his first service in 1.5 years The Metropolitan of Sviatohirsk served a memorial service for his spiritual father, Bishop Alipiy, ahead of another court hearing. On Sunday, November 2, 2025, Metropolitan Arseniy of Sviatohirsk celebrated his first service in a year and a half of confinement. In Dnipro’s St. Seraphim Church, the abbot of Sviatohirsk Lavra held a memorial service for his spiritual mentor – Schema-Archbishop Alipiy (Pohrebniak), who reposed four years earlier, on November 2, 2021. The day before, the defense attorneys had agreed with the judge that the next hearing on the preventive measure would begin no earlier than 12:00, since Sunday morning is when believers attend church. However, it was later learned that the session had been scheduled for 10:00, preventing the hierarch from serving the Divine Liturgy. Before the memorial service, Metropolitan Arseniy addressed the faithful with his first archpastoral word since his imprisonment. He shared his memories of the ever-memorable Bishop Alipiy, calling him a man of spiritual discernment and foresight. The Metropolitan recalled one incident when a woman came to Bishop Alipiy with seemingly insoluble problems. “I was then a young hieromonk and wondered: ‘This really is a hopeless situation! What will Vladyka say?’” Metropolitan Arseniy recounted. “Vladyka listened and then calmly said: ‘Well, my dear, in your case we will turn to the most reliable and proven experience – to prayer.’ Only a man of prayer could say such words, whose own prayer bore real fruit in people’s lives,” the hierarch noted. He also spoke about the traditional Orthodox attitude toward prayer for the departed, quoting old priests: “It’s interesting to pray for the reposed – you pray for them, and you feel their prayer in return.” “That’s why on parental Saturdays the churches used to be filled to the brim. It wasn’t just about remembrance – it was a spiritual communion between us, who came to the church, and our departed relatives, who at that moment were praying for us,” the Metropolitan explained. He recalled that in his native village, even people who had survived war and famine, having lost loved ones, always filled the churches on parental Saturdays: “They were all hard-working country folk, but on those days the temples were as crowded as on Pascha.” At the end of the service, Metropolitan Arseniy asked everyone to pray for the ever-memorable Schema-Archbishop Alipiy. Concelebrating with him were the parish rector, Archpriest Oleksandr, Hieromonk Ioann, and other clergy. This memorial service became a testimony that even under the harshest circumstances, Metropolitan Arseniy remains faithful to his pastoral calling. Recall that on October 28, 2025, after a year and a half in pre-trial detention, Metropolitan Arseniy was released on bail but was immediately rearrested. Since October 30, daily hearings have been held in Dnipro’s Sobornyi District Court on the choice of preventive measure in a second criminal case against him (under Article 436-2 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code). The prosecution insists that the hierarch be returned to custody. His lawyers argue that further detention would endanger the life of the seriously ill hierarch and are asking the court to choose an alternative preventive measure. Earlier, bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church appealed to President Zelensky, asking him to assist in securing Metropolitan Arseniy’s release.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0afeLayEZ3I&t=57s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlmZ7T3-RKs&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrrarP3d-WQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scxy4pNFC_k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0afeLayEZ3I&lc=Ugw_81IksKuZWuTz83Z4AaABAg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-3xYhSf5nE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSFNWGTFUkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwnNJpc2wdQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rYnQ2GwdFyQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mnzLgAuhfjo
Hitler’s relationship with Christianity is murky and off debated. That said it was Adolf Hitler who stood for Western and Eastern high culture and Christ’s church, as official policy, against the judeo Bolshevik and western judeo liberal pincer. He was a hero who has simply been lied about, along with the national socialists, time and again. Obviously its inadvisable to allow the jews of today to make this sort of run at Orthodoxy unanswered, but making wimpy defenses by trashing Hitler will get you nowhere. Organized jewry is going to come hard at the Orthodox church in the next few years. If this type defense is how the Orthodox think they’ll keep the wolves at bay they are quite deluded and will pay dearly for it. “Oh noo we aren’t Hitler the worst man ever” is a losing strategy. Its obvious with this gimmick, tying hand gestures together, that’s exactly what they want said in reply. Then the jew will demand endless proofs that Hitler isn’t hiding in the church. One answer to the synagogue of Satan, just to get the ball rolling, is “F off”.
Just as soon as you think it can’t get any weirder, it gets weirder still.
[…] Swedish public broadcaster bizarrely compares the Orthodox hand gesture used to make blessings to the Nazi salute! https://orthodoxreflections.com/is-the-three-finger-orthodox-blessing-a-nazi-salute/ […]
I suggest this silly tv person read a recent HAARETZ article, written by a Jewish historian:
The Zionist Fascist Wing That Adopted the Nazi Salute
https://archive.ph/VGFUe#selection-211.0-211.53
” Even as Jews sought to flee Germany, an extremist faction on the Zionist right lauded the rise of the Nazis and envisioned Ze’ev Jabotinsky as the ‘Hebrew Duce’ “
What Ms Ukaj said is not only incredibly insensitive and disrespectful but inexcusably ignorant and actually blasphemous. As a professional broadcaster her responsibility is to her audience, which means she better make sure she educates herself first before she starts dragging through the mud the second largest Christian religion in the world by saying something utterly false and incredibly stupid. I don’t think anyone in Sweden would say anything like that about Islam.
My son just told me that “hook-up-culture” Sweden legalized gay marriage as early as 1946. I guess that society is pretty “open”. Open arms, open legs, and now it looks like open brains. Grey matter is falling out all over the place. Sorry to be crass, but if the Swedes love being so open, they should open up some books and educate themselves before they start criticizing things they know nothing about.
Sorry to be dense, but what is “the three-finger sign representing the Holy Trinity?” Do you mean when a person crosses him/herself? The priestly blessing is the monogram of Christ and uses all fingers and the thumb, so … I don’t know what’s being talked about here.
For an illustration and explanation, see:
https://russianicon.com/ic-xc-hand-gesture-origins-and-symbolic-meaning/
“IC XC” Hand Gesture: Origins and Symbolic Meaning
It is well known that religious icons are abundant in a variety of symbols. Colors, postures, vestments, attributes of saints, and other icon elements have their meaning and iconographic canons. In this blog post, we will discuss icon gestures, namely the “IC XC” hand gesture. It is a popular symbol that can be found in many Orthodox icons of Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, and saints. What is its origin? What does it mean to Orthodox believers?
The “IC XC” hand gesture – the initials of Jesus Christ
The gesture of blessing is often seen in Orthodox iconography. It is a special finger fold used by the priests during the liturgy. The “IC ХC” hand gesture has its name for a reason – each finger is associated with a Greek alphabet letter. The index finger is the letter I, the middle finger makes up the letter C, the ring finger and the thumb fold into the letter X, and the pinky finger is the letter C. Thus, this gesture represents the initials of Jesus Christ.
… Blessing gesture symbolism
Besides forming the initials of Jesus Christ, the gesture of blessing conveys Christian doctrines. The three fingers symbolize the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The thumb and ring finger convey the dual nature of Jesus Christ – the union of the earthly and heavenly worlds. With this gesture, the Savior blesses everyone who asks for salvation, healing, and recovery from ailments.
Blessing gesture origin
It is believed that the tradition of depicting hand gestures in Orthodox icons originated in Rome and Ancient Greece. Oratory with the use of various hand gestures was highly developed in those countries. Some critics state that Orthodox iconographers adopted this tradition and turned it into iconographic symbols. In addition to the gesture of blessing, there are other hand gestures, such as the raised hand (also an important gesture in rhetoric) and the hand near the heart, which is often depicted in the Seraphim of Sarov icons.
The “IC XC” hand gesture plays a central role in the icon symbolism. It is often attributed to Jesus Christ who wants to render the truth to all people. Over the years, the gesture has also entered the liturgy. All priests and clergy now raise their hands to bless the believers in the temple and to draw attention to the important thing, just like Roman orators used to do.
Thanks…but..I know that, and it’s not a “three-finger sign.”