Russia Displays the Latest in its Aerospace Technology at Farnborough

Prototype of the Sukhoi Superjet-100 short-haul airliner

More than 60 aerospace companies from Russia are displaying their latest flying achievements at the Farnborough International Exhibition and Flying Display near London. The Farnborough Display, held since 1932, has rightfully earned the reputation of being the most prestigious air show, and it is a major highlight of the year in the aerospace industry. According to tradition, the design and technology innovations seen at Farnborough set the image for the new-generation in the aerospace industry. As usual, the Russian display presents a whole gamut of modern aircraft, air defence, space, civilian, and dual-use products and services. Constituting the bulk of Russia’s aviation exports are Sukhoi aircraft, which occupy a central place at Farnborough-2008.

Ruslan Pukhov is the Director of the Strategy and Technology Centre, and he said, “Yesterday saw a presentation of the Sukhoi Su-35 multi-purpose jet, and the Sukhoi manufacturers are pushing ahead with the Superjet-100 model, a small-capacity plane, about 100 seats, which is to replace the Tupolev Tu-134. Superjet-100 is expected to compete with the most famous brands of the type on the world market. What is particularly intriguing is that it is a fifth-generation aircraft. Until recently, all information about it was classified. Meanwhile, the maiden flight [of the production version] is to take place at the end of next year. The new model, designed in close cooperation with India, will hopefully capture 35 to 40 percent of the market”. International cooperation is crucial in development in the aerospace industry. More than 30 major aircraft producers are involved in the Sukhoi Superjet-100 project. 

14 July 2008

Vyacheslav Solovyov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29656&cid=61&p=14.07.2008 (in English) 

Russian Programmers Conquer Paris

Two Russian programmers, the Grebnev brothers Sergei and Ilya, won the prestigious International Imagine Cup in Paris. This is a major technological student competition held with support of Microsoft and other high-tech companies. Students compete in various categories, including algorithms, photography, and design. This year, over 200,000 students participated in the event from 60 countries. 370 of them got into the finals.

The Russian victory at the Imagine Cup competitions did not come as something unexpected for experts. Russian programmers have a very high reputation on the international market. Yet, what was quite unexpected for many is the category in which the Grebnev brothers won. It is called “Hoshimi”, or the programming of robots’ behaviour. A team of two persons is expected to save the life of Japanese Professor Hoshimi by programming the behaviour of robots implanted in his body. The competition makes use of literature, graphic arts, and tasks to check the skill of programming. Several teams take part in the “rescue operation”. The competition is not only very fun for the programmers taking part, but, also for viewers watching the competition in a virtual three-dimensional environment.

One of the winners, Ilya Grebnev, said that the task of creating something interesting and original was not easy. “It wasn’t the first time that I took part in the Imagine Cup competitions, but, this is my first big success. I am proud that I represented Russia at the competition. We are happy to have won, and the jury appreciated our original thinking”.

Rogerio Panigassi, one of the organisers of the competition said that the Imagine Cup competitions are being held for the sixth time, and Russians are always competitors. Russian students demonstrated a brilliant performance in resolving the tasks facing them. In addition to the brilliant victory of the Grebnev brothers, a team from the St Petersburg University of Information Technologies placed amongst the 12 best teams at this year’s competitions. Anton Nikitin, a member of the St Petersburg team, said they are glad with their success. “This is not a competition of programme products, but, of programme projects. Therefore, it is important to create an image of the system you are working out and that will be used in future”.

The Russian victory at the Imagine Cup Competition in Paris shows once again that Russian programmers are highly qualified. In short, they often dictate fashion in the world in this field. 

14 July 2008

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29650&cid=61&p=14.07.2008 (in English)

Aleksandr Avdeyev says that Russia has a Long History of Cultural Ties with Europe

Aleksandr Avdeyev, Minister of Culture

“Russia has a long history of cultural ties with Europe”, said Cultural Minister Aleksandr Avdeyev, who was, until recently, the Russian ambassador to France. A journalist from the Moscow-based newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda (Komsomol Truth) asked him how the Year of Russia will be held in France in 2010. He replied, “The ministry plans to display the country’s achievements in economics, science, education, and culture. We will show Russia as it truly is today, showcasing its achievements, wealth, and multinational culture. The ministry plans to show French audiences some little-known facts. The French are unaware of the results of Russia’s development over the past 15 years. Another aim of the event is to show to the French people how Russia has built a democratic state and civil society. In fact, Russia started this process not so long ago. The French people did this in the past two centuries, whilst Russia has only done so for 15-16 years. Another aim of the Year of Russia in France is to show Russia’s capabilities and the state of our Russian cultural life today. Russia has interesting things, and it’s worth talking about them and showing them. There are problems that could be compared with those in French culture. In this case, it is quite interesting to get acquainted with the French experience”.

In response to a question by Peter Freedman from Germany concerning what must be done to end the tragedy in Kosovo, as monasteries, churches, and cultural monuments have beeen destroyed [by the Albanian separatists], Mr Avdeyev said, “There is a need for us to raise this issue relentlessly at international organisations such as the Council of Europe, UNESCO, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the UN Security Council. Russia believes that what was destroyed must be reconstructed, with guarantees of security, at the earliest possible moment. We need this because none of the restorers from Serbia, Russia, or Germany will go there to do the job if their lives are in danger”. According to Mr Avdeyev, Russia is not only ready to start restoration of monuments in Kosovo, but, Russian society demands that the government in Kosovo and the world community must do so as well. He once again insisted that this must be done under conditions of security and in cooperation with international organisations.

Vyacheslav Solovyov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29617&cid=62&p=13.07.2008 (in English)

The USA and Russia Need to Agree on Missile Defence and Iran

US Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) (1934- ), Chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee

The missile defence shield the Pentagon is now setting up in Europe is not meant to fight off Iranian missiles and the Bush Administration should stop provoking Russia. This, in a nutshell, is what Senator Carl Levin, the influential chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, told CBS on Sunday. This honest and fair judgment is all the more significant as it comes from someone who is very well informed and has never been suspected of any pro-Russian bias. It’s really hard to disagree with Senator Levin that Washington keeps alienating Russia with all the means at its disposal, including the Iranian nuclear programme and proposals to expel Russia from the G8. The latter proposal has just been reiterated by the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. It’s also worth mentioning that Senator Levin’s opinion is fully shared by his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, the vice-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, one of America’s longest serving and most respected lawmakers. 

Unfortunately, the list of those who wish to erect a barrier between the US and Russia appears to be much longer than one would expect, and, in a recent interview with the C-Span television network, New York University Professor Stephen Cohen said the US was pursuing an imperial policy of double standards when dealing with Russia, including NATO enlargement, attempts to draw the Ukraine and Georgia into the Western bloc, and the use of the so-called “energy” weapon… Professor Cohen believes that, under the circumstances, Washington should change its tone and engage in an equitable and mutually respectful dialogue with Moscow. The US President should not lecture Russia on democracy and human rights, Professor Cohen said. During his two months in office, President Dmitri Medvedev has already made repeated calls for an honest, open, equitable, and mutually-respectful dialogue with the US. Thus far, however, we’ve been getting no signs of Washington being ready to bear in mind Russian concerns and adequately respond to these concerns… 

14 July 2008

Viktor Yenikeyev 

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29637&cid=58&p=14.07.2008 (in English)

France Initiated the Creation of a New Centre of a Multi-Polar World

French President Nicolas Sarkozy (1955- )

An important step towards the creation of a multi-polar world was started at the initiative of France. A new union of 43 states was established at a Paris summit on Sunday. It comprises all the Mediterranean and EU states. This French initiative is quite original since the union brings together states that do not have bilateral diplomatic relations, and what is more, are hostile, for example, Israel and Syria, which are actually in a state of war, or Lebanon and Syria, which have not maintained diplomatic relations since they gained independence in the 1950s. Recently, Lebanon and Syria agreed to establish diplomatic relations. In short, the creation of a new international organisation was announced. In addition to the 27 EU states and Mediterranean countries, it includes the Palestinian autonomy, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. The union is headed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. 

It was decided that the underlying principles would be equality amongst the countries of the North and the South and the struggle against terrorism and fanatical ideologies. M Sarkozy said that the union would open up a new epoch of peace. By the way, the French President emphasised that, at present, the world needs Moscow’s help in resolving its major problems. Although the new organisation’s title is the Union for the Mediterranean, European interest in it is keen. An EU endowment of 600 million euros (22.123 billion roubles. 956.533 million USD. 478.508 million UK pounds) was established for financing the projects of the new Union.

Kira Zueva, an expert from the Russian Centre of European Studies, commented on the French initiative, saying, “Steps recently taken by France enhanced its role in international relations and promoted the creation of a multi-polar world. The President Sarkozy’s initiative consolidates the position of the EU on the international scene and enhances its role as a major centre in an international multi-polar world”. 

Time will tell what turn developments will take. The newly-created Union can become a boon for the enhancement of peace and cooperation between countries on the opposite coasts of the Mediterranean. Actually, this is a move towards unification of two civilisations, two cultures, and two religions, Islam and Christianity. One of the chapters of the document on the creation of the Union calls for a political dialogue on human rights, liquidation of extremism, and a rejection of the violent subjugation of other nations. These are good principles for the creation of a multi-polar world. Judging by the composition of the new Union, the idea of its creation enjoys ever greater support in the world. 

14 July 2008

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29657&cid=56&p=14.07.2008 (in English)

MP Archpastoral Council completes its Session

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (1952- ), addressing the 1,020th Anniversary of the Baptism of Russia ceremony in the State Kremlin Palace

The MP Archpastoral Council session in Moscow is over. The main results of the meeting were an adoption of an MP document on human rights, the establishment of an ecclesiastical tribunal, the confirmation of the unity of the MP in the face of attacks by Ukrainian schismatics, the conditional deposition of Bishop Diomid for spreading confusion in the church, and the formal celebration of the 1,020^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia.

On 28 June, after a molieben in the Assumption Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin, the solemn formal opening of the 1,020^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia took place in the State Kremlin Palace. The participants in the Archpastoral Council, whose sessions were closed the day before, were present at the affair. In addition, political and public figures, representatives of other Christian confessions and non-Christian faiths, the leading Orthodox clergy of Moscow, and influential laymen of the capital were in attendance.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin gave one of the keynote addresses at the festivities. “From this time forward, the state intends to support the programmes of the church directed towards secular and interreligious harmony, its social work, its efforts in the support and preservation of our cultural heritage, and its charitable mission”. In his speech, His Holiness Patriarch Aleksei noted that it was important to preserve the church unity that our ancestors passed on to us. “Together, we are invincible. Our community, mutual aid, and fraternal solidarity shall ensure our joint future”, he emphasised.

On 29 June, the date of the formal closing of the MP Archpastoral Council, Patriarch Aleksei celebrated Divine Liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour assisted by the assembled hierarchs of the Church. Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk, the Patriarchal Exarch of all Byelorussia, gave the message of the Archpastoral Council to all clergy, to sincere followers of other faiths, and to faithful Orthodox Christians. President Dmitri Medvedev and his wife arrived after the liturgy, when a brief molieben was served. President Medvedev said a few words on the occasion of the closing of the Council and the celebration of the 1,020^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. He noted that the Church is gradually retrieving everything that rightfully belongs to it, in particular, holy relics and icons. Then, the president formally handed over the title to holy objects that had been held in the collections of the Kremlin museums during the time of Soviet rule.

However, what were the major and most important decisions of the late Archpastoral Council?

On Human Rights

On Thursday, 26 June, the Council unanimously affirmed the document The Basic Teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights. According to Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, the chairman of the MP Department of External Church Relations, who formally presented the document at the Council, it was written between the summer of 2006 and June 2008 by a study group consisting of Orthodox clergy, theologians, and public figures. This new document is now accepted as an official amplification of The Basic Social Teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church and The Official Position of the MP on the Topic of Human Rights. Earlier, Patriarch Aleksei, acting in his role as the chairman of the Council, repeatedly voiced the opinion that many international human-rights advocacy organisations “separate [the topic of human-rights] from traditional moral standards”, thus, making human-rights “a stimulus to selfishness and pride”. He further stated, “We assert that this ‘freedom’ is nothing but slavery to sin, for it is destructive both for the individual and for society at large”.

The document emphasises that the MP “perceives enormous danger in the legal and public support of various [moral] deficiencies, for example, sexual perversion and the cult of profit and violence… The transformation of such immoral and anti-human actions such as abortion, euthanasia, the use of human embryonic tissue for therapeutic purposes, and human genetic engineering into acceptable and conventional standards is inadmissible”. Besides this, the document states that a pernicious idea is spreading, that is, “the [secularist] interpretation of human-rights is seen by many as the highest and most universal basis for public life, and all particular religious views must be subordinated to it… They cite freedom of speech and creativity to justify muzzling the condemnation of such trends, symbols, or concepts by believers in the public square”.

The Council resolved to include The Basic Teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights in the curricula of the theological academies, seminaries, and schools of the MP, and recommended that secular educational institutions include this document as a part of their religious courses. All believers and church bodies are to follow the guidelines found in The Basic Teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights in their interactions with the state and secular society.

On the Ecclesiastical Tribunal

On Thursday, documents establishing an ecclesiastical tribunal were approved, and its members, who shall sit for a four-year term, were appointed. This project concerning church jurisprudence was headed by Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, the Chancellor of the MP.

Metropolitan Isidor of Yekaterinodar and the Kuban was named the chairman of the tribunal, and Metropolitan Onufry of Chernovitsy and Bukovina was selected to serve as his deputy. Other members of the tribunal are Archbishop Evlogy of Vladimir and Suzdal and Archbishop Feodosy of Polotsk and Glubok. Bishop Aleksandr of Dmitrov is to be the secretary of the tribunal.  

The Jubilee MP Archpastoral Council in 2000 adopted a resolution to take steps to revive the institution of the ecclesiastical tribunal, which existed before the Revolution of 1917, and to create a three-tiered judicial system in the church.

According to the proposal, the judicial system of the MP shall include diocesan tribunals, a general church tribunal, and the tribunal of the Archpastoral Council shall be the court of last resort. Besides this, the autonomous self-governing churches of the MP in foreign countries shall have their own tribunals. The diocesan tribunals, whose functions can be delegated to the diocesan councils with the blessing of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, shall deal with matters affecting clergymen, monastics, and laymen, and also such corporate church bodies as dioceses, parishes, monasteries, and podvorie (“representations” of monasteries or other Local Churches: editor’s note). The general church tribunal shall be the court of first instance for bishops and those in charge of Synodal and other pan-MP institutions. As a court of appeal of the second instance, the general tribunal shall review decisions of the diocesan tribunals and the tribunals of the autonomous self-governing churches that are appealed to it. The general tribunal shall also have the right to scrutinise the decisions of the lower tribunals to ensure that they are in accordance with the canons.

The Council declared that the ecclesiastical tribunals are intended “to restore order when church life and organisation are disrupted, and they shall contribute to the proper observance of the Holy Canons and Tradition of the Orthodox Church”. These tribunals shall have jurisdiction over all affairs of those under the authority of the MP. There are five categories of offences subject to adjudication by the ecclesiastical tribunals:

1. Offences against the Faith
2. Offences against fellow Orthodox Christians and Christian morals
3. Offences against monastic regulations
4. Offences against the church hierarchy
5. Offences against due order in pastoral service

On Bishop Diomid

In 2007, Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka published An Appeal to all Pious Members of the Holy Orthodox Church, in which he sharply criticised the MP and called all archpastors, pastors, and monks to repentance for the actions of the church. Diomid went to say that the patriarch “should not recognise democracy as an acceptable political system, but, he should only accept the God-given authority of an Orthodox monarch” and that His Holiness should expel “all sodomites, supporters of abortion and euthanasia, alcoholics, and dope fiends” from the church. He reproached the church hierarchy with advocating syncretistic ecumenism, of being subservient to the government, and of favouring globalisation and the G-8. Many of the claims mentioned in Diomid’s epistle were raised by the ROCOR during its reunification negotiations with the MP. Therefore, many Russian clergy believed that the appearance of this insubordinate letter not long before the scheduled signing of the Act of Canonical Communion was an attempt “to destroy confidence in the reunification process”.  

The Council decided to depose Diomid from the episcopal dignity and to reduce him in rank to that of a simple monk for fomenting a schism against the unity of the church. “After studying all the relevant documents, the harshest accusation against Bishop Diomid is that he fomented a schismatical spirit in the church, he attempted to destroy its unity”, the Council determination read. “The Council found that Bishop Diomid’s epistle had many examples of slander, disinformation, and lies against both the church hierarchy as a whole and individual archpastors”. In the opinion of the hierarchs, the statements of Bishop Diomid “would lead to a confrontation of the church with the state and with secular society”.

Bishop Mark of Yegorevsk, the deputy secretary of the MP Department of External Church Relations, said, “Nevertheless, the Council gave Vladyki Diomid the possibility of repentance, and if he does so, the decision to depose him from the episcopate shall not come into force. Now, his fate is in his own hands”. He added that the decision of the Council shall reiterate to believers that “the declarations of Diomid were beyond the pale; therefore, anyone who follows him shall place themselves outside of the Church. This decision shall bring back to sobriety many people who fell under the baleful influence of schismatics, if they value church unity, that is”.

On Saturday, 28 June, the MP Holy Synod, in accordance with the ruling of the Archpastoral Council, removed Bishop Diomid as the ruling bishop of the Diocese of Anadyr and Chukotka and interdicted him from serving liturgy. As locum tenems of the diocese, the Holy Synod appointed Archbishop Mark of Khabarovsk and Priamursky. Per an Interfax report on 29 June, quoting his nephew, Aleksandr Nesterov, Bishop Diomid refuses to recognise the decision of the Holy Synod. According to Mr Nesterov, during Sunday liturgy at Transfiguration Cathedral in Anadyr, Diomid declared to his parishioners that he had nothing to repent of and that he refused to amend his views, for he does not consider himself guilty of anything. Diomid refused to recognise the Synodal decision and stated that he intends to continue serving liturgy.

In the opinion of Fr Vladimir Vigilyansky, the head of the press service of the MP, even if Vladyki Diomid refuses to repent, this shall not provoke a large schism in the MP. “At most, it shall involve a small marginal group”, he said. Leonid Simonovich-Nikshich, the head of the Union of Orthodox Philanthropists, said, “I think that Diomid shall become a schismatic. Only a few shall follow him, but, there shall be a huge uproar”. He emphasised that Diomid became “a victim of manipulators who wish to destroy the unity of the MP and to embroil the church and the state [in useless disputes]”, the newspaper Komersant reported.    

On the conflict with the EP

His Holiness Aleksei Mikhailovich Rediger (1929- ), Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, First Hierarch of the MP, at the festivities celebrating the Baptism of the Ukraine in the State Kremlin Palace

An even more serious problem is brewing in the Ukraine. All three post-Soviet Ukrainian presidents sought to create an autocephalous church independent of the MP. To strengthen our unity with our Ukrainian brothers, Patriarch Aleksei offered some practical suggestions. He believes that there should be more contacts with the dioceses in the Ukraine, and that we should organise more pilgrimages to Kiev and other holy sites. The introduction of a new national holiday would become a sign for all believers.

In July, there shall be celebrations in Kiev marking the 1,020^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. However, Viktor Yushchenko has made several invitations that make it difficult for Patriarch Aleksei to take part in the festivities. Yushchenko not only invited Patriarch Aleksei (he has authority over the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church of the MP, the only canonical body in the country: editor’s note), but, also, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The MP emphasised that this is a violation of church protocol, and it strains the already-tense relations between the MP and the EP, to put it mildly. However, the proposal to invite the head of the so-called “Patriarchate of Kiev”, Philaret Denisenko, an anathematised cleric of the MP, alongside Patriarch Aleksei is completely unacceptable. Specifically, this is probably the intent of Ukrainian President Yushchenko.

“First of all, the establishment of a ‘Ukrainian’ church shall be an attack against believers in the eastern part of the Ukraine, where the population is basically Russian. The introduction of Ukrainian ‘autocephaly’ shall have catastrophic effects on the spiritual life of the country. Despite its persecution, the MP church in the Ukraine is the only truly living spiritual body [in the region]”, according to an article posted on http://www.regions.ru/ by Fr Dmitri Arzumanov, the rector of St John of Kronshtadt parish in Zhulebine. Andrei Yurash, a scholar of religion in Lvov, noted that the inflexible position of the MP with respect to the EP was because of the claims of the latter to be the arbiter of the problems of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. He said that the MP and the EP shall “use the Ukraine, the question of the Ukrainian church, and the present Ukrainian situation to jockey for position [in world Orthodoxy]”.

The Council approved the document The Determination of the MP Archpastoral Council on Church Unity, and it said, “At present, threats to church unity exist not only within the limits of the Local Church of the MP, but, also in the Orthodox world in general. Mainly, they proceed from clumsy attempts to alter the ancient and traditional relations between the Local Churches that are found in the Holy Canons”. Furthermore, the MP utterly rejects the novel ecclesiology offered by the EP, which can be summarised in the following points:

1. Only those Local Churches in communion with the EP are to be considered canonical
2. The EP has absolute jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora
3. Only the EP has the right to present the Orthodox position vis-à-vis the state and has the sole right to speak for all Local Churches
4. Any bishop or clergyman who goes beyond the canonical territory of his Local Church automatically falls under the jurisdiction of the EP, even if he does not realise this, so, he can be accepted into the jurisdiction of the EP formally without the usual letters of canonical release

Metropolitan Kirill stated that the Russian church had established missions in China, Korea, Japan, the Aleutian Islands, and Alaska. He expressed his dismay at the opinion of the EP that “the end result of the missionary activity of the Russian church is to create churches under the jurisdiction of the EP”. According to Metropolitan Kirill, this is the fundamental dispute separating the MP and the EP.

In the words of The Determination of the MP Archpastoral Council on Church Unity, “This Council advises the EP to manifest circumspection and to abstain from any action until there is an all-Orthodox examination of the enumerated innovations, as they have the potential to destroy Orthodox unity. This is especially true in the attempts of the EP to change the canonical territories of the Local Orthodox Churches”.

30 June 2008

Marina Garbaruk

Novye Khroniki (New Chronicles)

http://novchronic.ru/1451.htm (in Russian)

A Lump of Living Russia… Russian and Ukrainian Historians speak about the names Rus and the Ukraine

Millennium of Russia monument (erected 1862) in Novgorod

Today, in Kiev, the Local Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (the schismatical body headed by Denisenko: editor’s note) shall gather in honour of the 1,020^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. However, Philaret, the head of the so-called “Patriarchate of Kiev”, declared on the eve of the session that the council intends “to introduce a ‘correction’ to the concept of ‘Rus’, for today, Moscow says that Rus refers to Russia and not the Ukraine”.

He claims that the correction shall be introduced on the basis of old chronicles, particularly those of Nestor the Chronicler. Various news agencies reported that Philaret said, “Ancient chronicles testify to the fact that in the 9th and 10th centuries Rus included the contemporary Ukraine, a part of Byelorussia, the States, and a part of Poland. There was no such city as Moscow then, but, and today, they (Russians: Interfax) consider themselves Rus, but, this is a perversion of history”.

RG asked specialists in the history of ancient Rus, both Russian and Kievan, to explain the difference between the historical truth and what is simply slippery politics. Yelena Melnikova, the head of the Centre of Eastern Europe in the Ancient and Medieval World of the Institute of General History of the RAN, sighed heavily when she heard that the question was about the authenticity of the references given by Philaret. It was obvious that this was not the first time she has been forced to respond to this query, and she stated that she was uncertain [of what Philaret meant].

St Nestor the Chronicler (Mark Antokolsky, 1890). St Nestor lived from 1056 to 1114, and his relics lie in the Kievo-Pecherskaya lavara.

“[For Philaret] to introduce a ‘correction’ is strange, putting it mildly. The concept of ‘Rus’ as a united entity was clearly enunciated by the chroniclers, they had no doubts in this, in to contrast to Metropolitan Philaret.  The sources, The Primary Chronicle (he (Philaret) does not use the correct name for Nestor the Chronicler’s work) and the Novogorod-I chronicle, which deal with that early period of history and depict the events of the 9^th through the 11^th centuries, say that ‘Rus’ extended from South Pereyaslavlya (a region south of Kiev on the Dnepr) to Lake Ladoga. No Polish territories were part of this realm.

Moreover, Poland was not a united state; it was the separate principalities of Greater and Lesser Poland. Portions of Byelorussia and the Western Ukraine were part of the Polish domain. Where did the Baltic region fit into this? The Esty, the ancestors of the modern Estonians, were a tributary state of Novgorod, but, they were not considered a part of Rus, properly speaking. In fact, the chroniclers never mentioned them as being part of the land of Rus.

Another question is how the chroniclers separated Upper and Lower Rus. Lower Rus consisted of three main southern principalities, Kiev, Pereyaslovka, and Chernigov. The northern boundary of the latter reached almost to the Oka River. The four main states in the north made up Upper Russia, Smolensk, Vladimir, Suzdal, and Novgorod. Quite often, one finds in the chronicles passages saying, ‘In Upper Russia, this is what happened and this is how it occurred’”.

Pyotr Kotlyar, doctor of historical sciences and corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, also doubted the reasoning of the head of the “Patriarchate of Kiev”.

Map of Kievan Rus in the 11th century

“Reputable Russian and Ukrainian historians take about the same position on this question. There are no scholarly foundations for Philaret’s position. It is another matter to state that at the beginning of its history, Rus was centred in the south in the regions of Kiev and Chernigov. Everything connected with the word ‘Rus’ is complicated. At first, [in Constantinople], the term was used in reference to the Varangian Guard (that is, ‘Rus’ was Scandinavia), and only later did it pass on to specific Slavic peoples. The book of the Roman Vasileos Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos (905-959, ruled 908-959) (one of the best emperors, he influenced Grand Princess St Olga to be baptised: editor’s note), which was translated several times into Russian, describes how Grand Prince Igor of Kiev, in the middle of the 10^th century, “together with all the peoples of Rus” travelled about all the Slavic lands tributary to him.

However, as far as names are concerned, the eastern Slavic lands, Russia, the Ukraine, and Byelorussia, were called Rus for quite a long time, approximately until the end of the 12^th century. The term, ‘the Ukraine’, came much later, and it arose from a geographical concept (literally, it means ‘at the borders’, in free translation, ‘the border marches’). We must admit that the land was not called ‘the Ukraine’ in the time of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. It was still called ‘the Kievshchyna’. Some claim that the ataman shouted to the Polish ambassadors, ‘I shall expel you from the Ukraine; I shall chase you back to Lvov!’ If we were to follow Philaret’s logic, then, would Lvov be part of the Ukraine?”

Both Professors Melnikova and Kotlyar said that they had never heard of any Russian or Ukrainian historian making such a claim concerning the term “Rus”. Professor Melnikova said, “In my opinion, there has never been a dispute concerning this term. Off the top of my head, I can think of no such case. There were times in history when a land was conquered by another people, who then became the elite, but, the name of the country remained as before. Or, vice versa. It happened thusly in Bulgaria. The Bulgarians, a Turkic people, conquered the Slavs, but, they took on the language and culture of their subjects. However, they gave their name to their state. In England, there was a Celtic population conquered by a Germanic people, who gave the land their name, Anglia (England). France was also a land conquered by Germanic tribes and they gave the land its name. No one resents this in the least”.    

11 July 2008

Yelena Novoselova

Rossiskaya Gazeta (The Russian Newspaper)

Quoted in Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=print&div=8683 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Vasileos Ioannes II Komnenos (1087-1143, ruled 1118-1143), a powerful, fair, and merciful emperor

This is perhaps a good time to talk of the Roman Empire. That is, the state referred to in the West as the Byzantine Empire. This was the leading state in Europe at the time. Professors Melnikova and Kotlyar, therefore, are specialists in a period when Rus was not only culturally inferior to the Roman state; Rus was also weaker in a material sense to the Empire. Orthodox people should never use the term “Byzantine”, it is a Western coinage. The people of the Empire called their state Vasilea ton Romaion (Roman Empire), they were Romaioi (Romans), and their culture was Romaios (Roman). That is why we should never use the term “Byzantine” in the church sense, for it validates the erroneous Western notion of an “Eastern church”. Ergo, Uniates who call themselves “Byzantine Catholics”, by the very use of that term, confess their subservience to Western (not Orthodox!) terminology and theology.

Coat of arms of the Vasilea ton Romaion (Roman Empire)

All Russians acknowledge their debt to the medieval Roman state, church, and culture. Without such, we would be pagans (or Catholics) today. However, this leads to why the Ecumenical Patriarch was the “first amongst equals” at that time. It was not based on anything canonical or scriptural. It was based on the power of the Roman state. When that state collapsed in 1453, the primacy of the EP dissolved as well. Afterwards, Russia assumed the role of leader and protector of Orthodoxy, especially after the apostasy of some of the Roman hierarchy at Ferrara-Firenze in 1448. Many Greek people are convinced that the victory of the Ottomans was made possible by this act of clerical treachery.

That is why the present antics of the EP are pathetic and sad. The spiritual authority of the MP is backed by the material power of the Russian state, just as the EP was once backed by the Vasileos and the Roman state. Moscow replaced Constantinople as the axis of the Orthodox world some five centuries ago. Black Bart had best step lightly. Otherwise, he shall end like Isidore, a flock-less cardinal in Rome living on the pope’s largesse.