Fr Sergei Rybko Preached at Rock Festival Nashestviye (Invasion) 2008, a “Russian Woodstock”

Emmaus (Tver oblast), 7 July 2008 (Interfax):

The participants of the Nashestviye 2008 [Invasion 2008] rock festival, considered a “Russian Woodstock”, received pastoral blessings and a sermon from the stage. According to an Interfax-Religion correspondent, Konstantin Kinchev and his group Alisa played about two hours and their concert was crowned with a sermon by Hegumen Sergei Rybko, the rector of the church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, who is famed for his missionary work among counterculture youth. Thousands of Invasion participants enthusiastically welcomed his appearance on the stage.

“May God help you! Bear the banner of Russian rock with dignity, as Konstantin Kinchev does. Russian rock, in its best manifestations, has led many to faith, and, no doubt, it will lead many more people to Christ and salvation”, Fr Sergei said at the beginning of his remarks to the crowd. He recalled that many people of his generation came to faith in difficult times “when they were sent to the loony bin if they dissented”. However, in his opinion, “the authorities didn’t succeed, as we were faithful to our ideals, searched for ourselves in this world, and though we took different ways, in essence, it was one path to God. My friends, I believe in you. Indeed, there is no other path for us, we must follow our Russian traditions and Holy Orthodoxy, for they are God’s divine gifts to us, they serve our always invincible great Russian motherland, but, it is so only if we are united with Christ and one another”.

According to the festival’s organisers, over 100,000 people visited Nashestviye 2008 over the three days of its presentation. Multicoloured flags, including the Russian and Romanov imperial flags fluttered near the main stage set up on the Volga bank. The hometowns of the “Russian Woodstock” audience could be learned from the inscriptions on them: Moscow, Sochi, Tula, St Petersburg, Vladimir, Krasnodar, Oryol, Kaliningrad, Bryansk, Irkutsk, Severodvinsk, and Belgrad. Bad weather and muddy conditions didn’t cool the ardour of the Russian rock fans. 

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=25323 (in Russian)

President Dmitri Medvedev held Bilateral Meetings with G8 Leaders

President Dmitri Medvedev (1965- ) (right) with French President Nicolas Sarkozy (1955- ) (left)

Within the framework of the G8 summit in Hokkaido, President Dmitri Medvedev held meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. According to a Presidential aide, Sergey Prikhodko, Mr Medvedev and Frau Merkel had a detailed conversation about energy dialogue and security and energy efficiency. For Russia, it was necessary to learn Germany’s point of view before the talks on a new strategic cooperation and partnership treaty with the EU begin. Mr Prikhodko emphasised that it was the first meeting ever between President Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The two presidents gave high ratings to the development of Russian-French bilateral economic cooperation. Recently, Moscow and Paris have actively implemented a series of investment projects, especially in auto-making. Mr Medvedev and M Sarkozy also focused on a new cooperation agreement between Russia and EU. As one of the key players on the European continent, France promised Russia support during the negotiation process and in terms of its accession to the WTO. 

The meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was of special interest for both experts and journalists as Moscow and London faced some difficulties in relations in recent years. According to Mr Prikhodko, the two leaders had a frank dialogue and discussed all thorny issues in political and humanitarian cooperation, including the fate of the British Council in Russia and the work of some big oil companies. Mr Medvedev suggested that they made an attempt to restore the previous level of cooperation and make it even better and productive in the near future. Apart from this, Mr Medvedev and Mr Brown touched upon global economic issues, the food crisis, and globalisation. Thus, Russia and Great Britain have a chance to improve bilateral cooperation.

7 July 2008

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29366&cid=56&p=07.07.2008 (in English)

G-8 Summit Underway In Japan

On Monday, the G-8 summit got underway in the Japanese city of Toyako, on Hokkaido Island. The G-8 is one of the key informal mechanisms to coordinate the financial, economic and political efforts of the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Canada, and Russia. Hokkaido is now the centre of the globe’s political life for the next three days. Besides the G-8 leaders, the leaders of Brazil, South Africa, Australia, India, China, South Korea, Indonesia, and Mexico are attending the forum. The latter eight have been invited to attend the summit’s working meetings to discuss the whole of the meetings’ agenda, specifically contributions to African development, fighting the negative consequences of climate change, and the global economic situation given unstable oil and food prices. The summit will also take up international security, specifically non-proliferation and the situation in global flashpoints. 

An interesting peculiarity of this year’s G-8 summit is that it is holding working meetings in an enlarged format. On Monday, the G-8 leaders will meet their counterparts from some developing nations, namely Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, India, and China. On Tuesday, these are scheduled to be joined by the leaders of Australia, South Korea, and Indonesia. This kind of format gives the summit some fresh content and makes the functioning of the G-8 more open. Yet, the G-8 is in no rush to offer G-8 membership to new members.

During the summit, Russia is expected to make specific proposals for consolidating international food security. Those meeting on the sidelines of the summit do not rule out that Russia, as a leading agricultural producer, may come up with a plan for boosting agricultural production, specifically to increase its own agricultural produce exports, which will be Russia’s specific contribution to the efforts to fill the world food basket. Russian experts and major companies are prepared to start a multilateral dialogue on shaping a global agricultural policy that would adequately respond to new threats around the world. 

Japan, the host country of the summit, has put at the pinnacle of the agenda the problem of climate change. It sees global warming as a disaster that threatens both current and future generations. To live in harmony with nature is an old cultural tradition of the Japanese. Today, Hokkaido is a graphic illustration of a careful treatment of the environment. It’s for the same reason that the Japanese chose for the symbol of the summit a sprout cutting its way through the asphalt. 

7 July 2008

Yelena Studneva 

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29326&cid=56&p=07.07.2008 (in English)

New Russian Leader to Début at G-8 Summit

President Dmitri Medvedev (1965- )

Dmitri Medvedev, the new Russian President, shall join the most important political and economic summit of the 8 most industrialised nations next week, signalling that his policy will be consistent with that of his predecessor. The new Russian leader will be making his first formal début among the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations. There’s no question that all eyes will be on him as he will try to do his best to make a good impression at the G-8 summit. 

The youthful Russian president used recent visits to Beijing, Berlin, last week’s EU-Russia summit, and his current trip to the energy-rich former Soviet Republics in Central Asia to give the world an inkling of what might be expected of him as Russia’s top leader. Ahead of this year’s Group of Eight [G-8] gathering on7-9 July, some observers described him as “wearing a kinder, gentler face, yet, signalling he will be as tough as his predecessor”. Senior western officials who met President Medvedev on previous occasions since he took office all seem to describe him as “young”, “open”, and “relaxed”. 

At the G-8 summit on Hokkaido, President Medvedev may have every opportunity to reinforce his image on the informal level. But, on the thorny issues that have strained Russia’s relations with the West, like NATO expansion, US missile defence in Eastern Europe, and energy competition, Mr Medvedev has firmly stuck to policies forged by Vladimir Putin. A European official told the French News Agency (AFP) on the sidelines of the EU-Russia summit in Siberia last month that “all the usual disputes have been put on the table, minus the aggressive connotation that Putin gave them”. 

In a meeting with a group of foreign journalists held this week in Moscow, President Medvedev was frankly asked about a proposal of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential hopeful, to bar Russia from the Group of 8 because of its record on democracy. His reply seemed just as blunt as he said that an America in “essentially a depression” was in no position to lecture other countries on how to conduct their affairs. “The Group of 8 exists not because someone likes or dislikes them, but, because objectively they are the biggest world economies and the most serious players from the foreign policy point of view”. He added that “any attempts to put restrictions on anyone in this capacity will damage the entire world order”. 

Moscow’s foreign policy goal right now is to ensure Russia’s return to the international stage. The upcoming G-8 summit in Japan, where Russia wants to appear on an equal footing with the United States about managing global problems of the day, may prove to be the right occasion for the new Kremlin leader to begin doing just that. 

4 July 2008

Yuri Reshetnikov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29255&cid=87&p=04.07.2008 (in English)

First Female Four-Star US Army General Nominated

Lieutenant General Ann Dunwoody (1953- ), nominated to be head of the Army Material Command and promotion to the rank of full General

Lieutenant General Ann Dunwoody has been nominated for four-star general rank, making her the first woman to achieve that rank in American history. General Dunwoody’s military career is a textbook case of gender equality in the US forces. She once said in an interview that her family had served the United States since 1862. A native of New York, she was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1975 after her graduation from the State University of New York. She thought she would spend just a couple of years in the military, only to realise, pretty soon, that the army was exactly the place she wanted to be. Whilst still in uniform, Ann Dunwoody continued her education and now holds graduate degrees in national resource strategy and logistics management. 

She became the US Army’s top-ranking woman in 2005 when she received her third star and became deputy chief of staff for Army logistics. If confirmed by the Senate, General Dunwoody will become the head of the Army Material Command, which handles all material readiness for US ground forces, including supplies for US troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Dunwoody’s nomination is seen by many as a response to recent complaints about women submariners being only allowed to stay a few days on board, and members of the fair sex accounting for a meagre 2 percent of all US Air Force pilots. 

In a report that came out in June, a group of American civil rights activists accused the armed forces of discriminating against lesbians more than they did against gay men, a clear reference to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, which is the common term for the US military policy since 1993 that prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, whilst serving in the US forces. Sceptics argue, however, that prior to 1993, the official policy prohibited anyone who demonstrated “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the US forces. According to official statistics, of the 627 people dishonourably discharged from the army for violation of this particular clause, almost half were women. Civil libertarians see this figure as disproportionately high since women account for a mere 14 percent of US military personnel. 

General Dunwoody’s nomination would come as a consolation prize to anyone heartbroken to have lost the chance to elect a woman to the White House this coming November… 

7 July 2008

David Brian

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29355&cid=87&p=07.07.2008 (in English)

Top US Military Officer Warns Against Attacking Iran

Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen (1946- ), US Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the ranking American military officer

The highest-ranking US military officer warned last week that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea. Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, told newsmen in Washington that “this is a very unstable part of the world, and we don’t need it to be more unstable”. Admiral Mullen made what could be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 election year. But, as it came just ahead of a holiday weekend, it did not receive much notice in the media. 

Saying that he didn’t want to see the Middle East becoming even more unstable, Admiral Mullen added pointedly that the United States hasn’t had “much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time” , a statement which seemed to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government. In saying so, Admiral Mullen sounded pretty much like Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama, who said that if he is elected, he would begin talks with Iran without any precondition. Up to now, the Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Tehran must cease its nuclear enrichment, which is a step toward building nuclear weapons. 

Admiral Mullen is one of those powerful appointed officials whose words carry much weight and their import may have as much effect on the campaign as the presidential contenders themselves. In any case, it’s quite unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such stark terms of the risk of a potential military action and to call for diplomacy so emphatically. Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, pointed to Admiral Mullen’s statement in which he said, “I’m convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial, and international pressure. There’s a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level”. 

7 July 2008

Yuri Reshetnikov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29348&cid=87&p=07.07.2008 (in English)

Ukrainian Orthodox People do not want Autocephaly!

The Unity of the Russian People [Mikhail Khmelko, 1948]

This year, as the MP Archpastoral Council showed, the Church is fighting against internal schisms. On Friday 27 June, Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka was warned that if he did not repent [of his schismatical opinions] before the next session of the MP Holy Synod that he would be deposed from the episcopate. A no less important problem is the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. We spoke with Archbishop Ionafan Yeletskikh of Tulchinsk and Bratslavsky about this and also concerning missions, youth work, and the state of Church-state relations. Vladyki Ionafan is widely-considered one of the founders of the Orthodox internet.

Oleg Gorbunov

To your way of thinking, why is it necessary to work on the Internet?

Archbishop Ionafan

The fact is that at the beginning of the 1990s, the era of the disintegration of the USSR and the formation of its successor states, a time of uncertainty and the appearance of the autocephalist schism in the Ukraine, I was the chancellor of the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church of the MP (UAOC (MP)). One of the things that I came to understand was we would not be able to withstand the vicious attacks against the MP in the Ukraine without an effective media presence. That was a necessary element of our defence!

Of course, once we realised this, we had to make plans and implement them. We had to explain our position, the position of canonical Orthodoxy in the Ukraine. This is the situation that faced us when the government of Leonid Kravchuk banned us from all newspapers, periodicals, TV, and radio, that is, from all media outlets in the Ukraine. Through this, a media blockade of the UAOC (MP) was imposed. For many years after his arrival in Kiev as Metropolitan, His Beatitude Vladimir was denied access to broadcast time on the state-run television network.

Under such conditions, when the internet made its appearance, Local Churches such as the MP established official websites, so, we thought that we could do something similar. I organised an internet-page for the Diocese of Sumy. This modest website soon acquired an official status because His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir wrote us a letter giving his blessings to this undertaking. In fact, I used my status as the chancellor the UAOC (MP) to post on this site all our official statements, the decisions of the Holy Synod, polemical articles, etc. One can say that this site was the genesis of all our contemporary internet presence. This site was called Pravoslavie v Ukraine (Orthodoxy in the Ukraine) and it soon led to the official UAOC (MP) website (www.pravoslavye.org.ua) edited by Vasili Anisimov. More and more, we systematised and defined our work; it resulted in the site http://orthodox.org.ua. Of course, we have other websites, Pravoslavie v Ukraine is still in existence, and there are others.

Oleg Gorbunov

Are there pro-autocephalist factions in the UAOC (MP)?

Archbishop Ionafan

As far as the UAOC (MP) is generally concerned, indeed, it is no secret that there are traitors amongst us who support [autocephaly]. They are traitors not simply because it cannot and must not be implemented; they are such because this is the basis of their church life. They are open about this.

Oleg Gorbunov

Vladyki, what are your personal views on this?

Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow

Archbishop Ionafan

I share the theological opinion of Fr Sergei Bulgakov as found in his book Essays on the Church. He relates interesting ideas concerning autocephaly, especially national autocephaly (complete independence). He said that autocepahlism is evidence of the weakening of sobornost (conciliar consciousness is a weak translation: editor’s note) and Catholicity in the Church. The splitting of the ancient churches into the Local Churches of today, separated by national particularities (Antiochian, Egyptian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian churches et al) testified to their lack of a sense of Catholicity, he thought. I agree with this idea very strongly. Therefore, in principle, I am against autocephaly! Nevertheless, that is what President Kravchuk advocated. There is another point of view, that is, autocephaly lacks soterological value, for it does not help our salvation in the least. It is only the outward form of the earthly life of the Church.

However, politicians and nationalists place unchurchly (netserkovnye) foundations under the notion of “autocephaly”, and their motivations are similar in nature. You have heard of one of these notions… “An independent church in an independent state”. We must ask ourselves, “What does this idea stipulate?” Obviously, it implies that the Church is subordinate to the state. But, the Church is by its very nature independent! Christ created the Church and it has inner freedom as a result! A manifestation of this is that the Orthodox Church forbids its clergy to take a direct part in the secular government.

In itself, the thesis “an independent church in an independent state” implies that state policy shall dictate the canonical position of the Church. This is nothing but a reversion to ancient, need I say, pagan, notions of caesaropapism. To follow this paradigm enunciated by Kravchuk and Philaret is simply impossible. The autocephaly of the Local Churches is not built on such a foundation, nor should we do so in future. [Autocephaly] is built on the obedience, fraternity, and interaction of the people, all done in the spirit of seeking selfless benefit for the Church of Christ! However, if it does not proceed naturally from within the Church, if it is imposed from without by a diktat of the state, shall this thoughtless interference [by the state] in the matters of the Church bring us benefit? No. Does autocephaly add anything of itself to the saving of souls? No.

Before I left for Moscow [to attend the Archpastoral Council], I met with the clergy of my diocese. I wished to hear from them their opinion of the idea of the autocephaly of the UAOC (MP). An overwhelming majority agreed with my negative stance on the question. They asked me to express this openly.

As far as I know, since I am a member of the theological commission of the UAOC (MP), the government exerted pressure on the Church by circulating a proposal coming from the Uniates (headed by Cardinal Husar), the so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Church (under pseudo-Metropolitan Mefody), and the anathematised former cleric of the MP, Philaret Denisenko (the pseudo-Patriarch of Kiev) advocating the formation of a united Local Church in the Ukraine. Well, each of these parties submitted their own version. Here is our idea. The UAOC (MP) and its hierarchy, led by His Beatitude Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and all the Ukraine, have always stood for, stand for at present, and shall always stand for a canonical solution to the problem. We think about the results of a schism with the Russian Church, therefore, we shall not be [schismatics]. We accept the Will of God in everything!

However, one main thing remains. The Ukrainian Orthodox people do not want autocephaly!

Oleg Gorbunov

Personally, do you desire union with the schismatics?

Archbishop Ionafan

No. Their conditions are anti-canonical.

Oleg Gurbunov

What are their conditions?

Cardinal Ljubomir Husar (1933- ), head of the Uniate church in the Ukraine. He has a US passport and does the bidding of Bush and his running-dog-lackey Rice.

Archbishop Ionafan

For example, Cardinal Husar proposed that the Uniates join the Ukrainian Local Church and that it should recognise the Pope of Rome [as its head]. He proposes that we all should become Uniates! This is preposterous. Of course, we answer “no” to such. [Husar] still hopes that he can pull this off, though. Philaret proposed that we “reject” any association with the MP. It means that from the small schism that exists at present we shall erect a larger schism, with Philaret himself as the head.

Oleg Gurbunov

That is what they wrote?

Archbishop Ionafan

You only have to read it! He said, “There is no need to elect a patriarch as I am already one”. Him… someone under an anathema. In any case, is this the canonical way of doing things? He said, “We only have a jurisdictional separation, just as existed between the MP and the ROCOR. There once was a breach, but, now it is healed. In any case, we (that is, the “Patriarchate of Kiev” under Philaret) are not schismatics”. Excuse me! He created his “autocephalous local church” out of thin air. However, the UAOC (MP), this is a branch of the MP, he said. Then, by saying this, he rejected his own claims of being an independent patriarchate, if he speaks of the separation being merely jurisdictional, or, as they propose, the churches are actually united and only await the time when they all recognise one another. This is not the canonical way. Therefore, our answer is “no”.

As far the other schismatics are concerned, we are not as harsh concerning them. At least, they recognise that it is necessary to approach this problem in a canonical manner. Our position is simple. We shall articulate and follow the canonical path. In any case, the final word on such affairs lies with His Holiness the Patriarch, the Local Church of the MP as a whole, and the Archpastoral Council of the MP.

Oleg Gorbunov

What is your idea of the proper role of the mission of the Church to youth?

Archbishop Ionafan

Before the Archpastoral Council, I saw in some of the media that the Council would discuss a letter, if I am not mistaken, of 26 clergymen stating that innovations in church life and missionary work are inadmissible. However, the programme of the Council says otherwise!

Firstly, we must find who actually wrote this letter and who actually signed it. As always, “manifestoes” are posted on the internet before any significant church event such as the Archpastoral Council, and most of them are merely provocations. When I was surfing the internet and saw this letter with the signatures of respectable people, then, I began to very seriously doubt that this text was written by them. In cases such as this, one has to investigate the matter thoroughly.

It is hard to relate to this statement unambiguously. On the one hand, their concern for the good of the Russian church, its parishes, and parishioners is praiseworthy. People are interested, but, what can they do? This, of course, is the best face that one can put on this letter. On the other hand, what do they propose? Are we to be a set of “new” Old Ritualists? Do they truly think that we cannot use modern Russian in our missionary outreach, in our work with young people, or in our prayer meetings? Are they saying that we cannot translate the Canon of St Andrew of Crete into modern Russian? Gentlemen, you are obscurantists! The Bible, the Word of God, was translated into Russian in the 19^th century with the blessing of the Holy Synod. They even cite this fact in their letter. Obviously, this means that the translation of the Word of God is possible, but, the translation of the poetry of the Canon of St Andrew of Crete, which is nothing but a paraphrase of the same Word of God is not?

Oleg Gorbunov

What is your opinion of the new methods?

Archbishop Ionafan

We should speak about principles first. Why do these people wish to close open doors? Indeed, this door was opened by the tsar some 150 years ago. St Philaret of Moscow blessed the work and carried it out. The spirit of Ss Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius cannot be killed!

Sometimes, another argument against the use of modern Russian in church is used. On the eve of the Revolution, in 1915-16, some attempted to come up with a more intelligible version of Church Slavonic. The commission was headed by the future patriarch, Sergei Stagorodsky. They were able to publish new versions of several religious rites in corrected Slavonic, a move that made the text more intelligible. Unfortunately, the introduction was handled poorly, and the people did not accept it. So, according to these folks, there is no need to translate anything, it is not a pressing need. Even if it is incomprehensible and incorrect, but, we must preserve what is accepted, everything! Anyway, such is their argument.   

These people are the Avvakums of our time; they have not changed over the centuries. What about the Yelizavetinskoe edition of the bible in Slavonic? They had to made constant corrections to the text! Look at the Slavonic usage in The Lay of the Campaign of Igor! I can understand the gospel [in Slavonic], but, it is necessary for me to sit and sweat over “the word”, examining every word and phrase carefully. The language has changed that much. So, corrections exist, and shall continue to exist, one way or another. Therefore, the question is not whether translations are possible or not, but, rather, shall they do any good. In my opinion, there is no need to remove Church Slavonic from our divine services. God forbid! I am a strong supporter of the Church Slavonic language. However, divine services are one thing, and mission in all of its forms, including amongst our youth, is another. You must speak the language of your flock.

Was the Gospel written in the classical Greek language? No, it was written in the simple colloquial language of the people, not in the Attic or any other high-falutin’ dialect. What kept Blessed Augustine from embracing Christianity at first? He was well-read, received an education in the law, and was a polyglot. This saint and Father of the Church wrote in his Confessions that the humble language of the Gospel repulsed him at first.

Now, the defenders of the Church Slavonic language would say that this sort of language is not spiritual, that only Church Slavonic can properly express the prayerful spirit of Christian humility. Nevertheless, Blessed Augustine accepted the Good News in precisely such simple language! Therefore, to speak of the special spirituality of the Church Slavonic language is unnecessary. Language is not spiritual; rather, it is ideas, the Word, which was at the beginning! It is spirituality directly from the Holy Spirit!

Oleg Gorbunov

Despite the fact the Church is formally separate from the state and does not participate directly in the making of policy, it is closely concerned with everything that happens in public life, in particular, with state policy. As a citizen and clergyman, how do you relate to the fact that there are those who are trying to push the Ukraine very actively into the Western camp?

Archbishop Ionafan

I cannot forget the horrific impression that I received during NATO’s so-called Operation “Merciful Angel”. Their aircraft dropped their bombs and they fired their rockets at Belgrade on Orthodox Easter, when all the Serbians stood at prayer in their churches. Can you deny that this was spitting in the faces of all Orthodox Christians? This was my human reaction to all of this.

There is a remarkable academician, Pyotr Tolochko, a corresponding member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He recently wrote an article on this very topic. He considers that if the Ukraine where to break with Russian civilisation, the result would be catastrophic. I think that he is absolutely correct. I dare you to contradict me! There are no counter-arguments that I can see.

Oleg Gorbunov

The “church” of Philaret Denisenko even advocates the integration of the Ukraine into the West in its propaganda.

Archbishop Ionafan

The “church” of Philaret is nothing but a political organisation filled with politicians, nationalists, Russophobes, and other such. I would be quite surprised if you thought of them differently. “Say to me who your friends are, and I shall tell you who you are”. NATO bombed Belgrade on Easter! Such people are peacemakers? Philaret’s gang are the same as they are. Then, they must be the enemies of Holy Orthodoxy.    

30 June 2008

Russki Zhurnal (Russian Journal)

Quoted in Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=radio&div=893 (in Russian)