Voices from Russia

Saturday, 28 February 2015

“Kudryakov wasn’t a Notorious Hawk, Unlike Denisenko”

00 church in slavyansk. 18.07.14


On 24 February, “Metropolitan” M A Kudryakov of Kiev and all the Ukraine, the head of the schismatical “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” (UAPTs), died in Kiev at the age of 66 after a long illness. According to the UAPTs, F A Denisenko, the head of the schismatical “Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate” (UPTs/KP), expressed condolences to the bishops, clergy, and believers of the UAPTs, and to the family and friends of the deceased. Kudryakov was born 11 March 1949. He graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy and .became a priest in 1981. The then-head of the schismatical UPTs/KP, V Ye Romanyuk, made him a “bishop” in 1995.

The UAPTs began on 19 August 1989 as part of the schismatical “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the Diaspora”. The Local Sobor of 5-6 June 1990 elected “Metropolitan” M I Skripnik as the head of this “church”, after whose death some bishops of the UAPTs came under the MP’s jurisdiction, others went under the so-called UPTs/KP. On 7 September 1993, the second UAPTs Local Sobor elected D V Yarema as “Patriarch of Kiev and all the Ukraine”, who died in 2000. After him, the Local Sobor elected Kudryakov as head of the UAPTs. In the Ukraine, the UAPTs has 11 dioceses, led by a Diocesan Council. There were 556 parishes in 2001, served by 409 priests. The UAPTs is in canonical limbo.

The UAPTs in the Ukraine arose as a rebellion of disaffected priests banned by Denisenko from the ministry; they went into schism by setting up a structure headed by Yarema, who became the “patriarch” of the UAPTs. The breakaway priests realised that Denisenko had overstretched his powers. The only way they found to resolve the conflict was to kick Filaret out of the church. In recent years, the UAPTs, unlike Denisenko, didn’t take extreme Russophobic positions, so, it’s very difficult to predict what will happen now in this structure, because we didn’t particularly monitor them. I note that Kudryakov wasn’t a notorious hawk; he thought that Denisenko was responsible for the death of his predecessor Romanyuk. The UPTs/KP has three times as many locations as the UAPTs does in Ternopol, Lvov, and Ivano-Frankovsk Oblasts. However, the UAPTs is set in its ways, they aren’t working for union; they prefer to remain in schism. Yet, they’re not akin to Filaret’s mafia-like structure; unlike the UPTs/KP, they refused to seize UPTs/MP parishes violently. The UAPTs has explored routes for it to seek a canonical resolution with the recognised Orthodox Church.

25 February 2015

Vasili Anisimov

Head, Synodal Information Department, UPTs/MP

Russkaya Narodnaya Liniya


Friday, 27 February 2015

“The Bandershtadt Must be Destroyed”

00 The Ukraine. map. 27.02.15


I’ll express my thoughts on this subject very strongly and sharply… the Ukraine isn’t only good for nothing… it has no right to exist as an independent nation-state! In ancient times, the Eastern Slavs inhabited the forest-steppe zone; later on, they moved to the Eastern European part of Russia… Little Russia was the native homeland of the Eastern Slavs. In those days, the Cimmerians dominated the southern steppes. If you fast-forward to the 18th century, the victories of Suvorov and Potemkin joined the Crimean Tatars to the realm of Yekaterina Velikaya. The Historical Ukraine is the so-called Hetmanate. Let me remind you that remote areas with some degree of autonomy in Old Russia were called “Ukraina”. There were several, there was a “Ukraina” in the Trans-Baikal. The reason was simple… this area had only one road around the lake linking it. Cities located near Pskov were called the “German Ukraina”, as Pskov bordered on the lands of the Teutonic Order. The land around Oki, which was only wilderness in those days, was called the “Polish Ukraina”. In St Petersburg, Okhta was called the “Petersburg Ukraina” until the construction of the Okhtinsky Bridge in the early 20th century. Even before the founding of the city of Okhta, Finnish fisherfolk lived in the area.

I mention these historical examples to make it clear that “Ukraina” meant “the borderlands”, so, one can see that the so-called “Ukrainian project” was crank from its very outset. All lands dominated by Catholics underwent gradual Polonisation… the Poles didn’t win over the people in the Ukraine nor Belarus nor Lithuania, but there was a betrayal by the ruling élite… Orthodox boyars changed their faith and national identity. This was the main difference between Malorossiya and Great Russia. Nevertheless, the Great Russian élite (nobility and the KPSS nomenklatura) has always been patriotic, despite some scoundrels. In the Ukraine, historical tradition records the betrayal of the élites. During the Cossack uprising there was a territory called the Hetmanate… a small strip along the left bank of the Dnepr, with some self-government. Ukrainian historians allege that it was a proto-Ukrainian state in a treaty relationship with Moscow. However, bear in mind that an autocracy, by definition, can’t limit itself, to make others coevals. Autocracy is unlike a constitutional monarchy, which recognises agreements on limitation. What existed along the left bank of the Dnepr wasn’t a state; rather, it was an autonomous area devoid of serfdom, which disappeared due to the Khmelnitsky Uprising. The Cossack elders ruled this autonomy, headed by a hetman chosen for life, who, in turn, bowed to the Russian Tsar. This was the so-called primordial Ukraine. Where Kharkov now stands, was the Sloboda (Sloboda Ukraina (“Free”Ukraine”)), which didn’t really have a government, the steppe-land south of the former wild fields only had active settlement in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then, there was the Polish Partitions; in contrast to the left-bank Ukraine, where there was no Polish nobility, on the right bank, they survived until 1917… and in Volynia until 1939… such noble families as the Potocki, Ganski, Luck, Brezhinski (heh,heh,heh) etc.

On the left bank, the only thing one could say of the Ukrainian élite was that it was deceitful. During the reign of Tsar Pyotr Veliki, the Hetmanate became a centralised military régime. Local elders, descendants of Cossack atamans and captains, longed to become nobles. For many years, they pleaded to have the same rights as the rest of the Russian nobility, which automatically would give them the right to own serfs. Finally, upon the request of these local nobles, Yekaterina Velikaya abolished freedom and introduced serfdom. She hadn’t wanted to do this for some time, because it’d harm her reputation as an enlightened sovereign. Yekaterina invited German colonists to come to Russia, hoping that they’d show the benefits of free peasant labour through their example, but she had to deal with the Cossack elders. Thus, the descendants of wild and free Cossacks became commonplace landlords. Think of N V  Gogol’s heroes… the landlords Pererepenko and Dovgochkhuna. These names came from the descendants of glorious Cossacks, and Nikolai Vasilyevich was one of this nobility.

In tsarist times, the Poles remained as the nobility on the right bank. At the same time, the tsars conquered Novorossiya, which didn’t have even indirect ties to the Hetmanate. Thus, we can see that the “Ukraine” was a heterogeneous structure, which evolved somewhat separately from Russia. The Ukrainian movement was a construct of the Poles, as a part if their project to dominate the area. There seemed to be an insurmountable challenge in front of them… how do we get the people of the borderland to fight for Poland? The Ukrainian ideology posits a slave happy to be in bondage to his Polish master. The Ukrainian ideal is to split from Russia, to become a favourite slave of the Poles or Germans, or, at worst, a hireling of the EU. Unfortunately, only psychology or psychiatry can explain this phenomenon. One can hope that, eventually, prudent Ukrainians would come to their senses. However, I fear that the process of sobering up will be long. For instance, a recent Ukrainian opinion poll showed that the majority of Ukrainians favour continuing the war, although they recognise that a civil war would have no winners. Aboriginal lands can’t be by definition “Ukraina”, since a “Ukraina” is a “borderland”. It’s pointless to hope that if the Donbass were to leave the Ukraine, if all of Novorossiya were to return to Russia, then, you could easily make friends with the rest of the country. The very essence of the “Ukrainian project” is to harm Russia. To paraphrase a famous saying of the Roman senator Cato, “The Bandershtadt must be destroyed”.

25 February 2015

Sergei Lebedev

Doctor of Philosophical Sciences

Russkaya Narodnaya Liniya


Monday, 23 February 2015

23 February 2015. Defenders of the Fatherland Day… THIS is Why the Republican Filth Will NOT Overwhelm Holy Rus

Sergei and Aleksei Tkachyov. Sons. no date. 23.02.15


Sergei and Aleksei Tkachyov

no date (1960s-70s?)


00 Yevgeni Tregub. Opolchenietsy. 1983.


Yevgeni Tregub



Look at the above images… the first is a mother blessing her sons to go off to the VOV. This painting is from the late Soviet time… it portrays an overtly religious action without censorship. The second shows opolchenietsy getting ready to march in the defence of Moscow in 1941. Yevgeni Zakharovich was a VOV vet, so, he knew the score (he’s the sort of person spat on by the pro-American/papist junta). Let’s not play about… the point is that Western neoliberal greedsters want to destroy Holy Rus, so that they can rape it for their profit. The worst are found in the US Republican Party… the worst amongst them is Ted Cruz. If you recall, this strutting godless sectarian spat on Arab religious leaders, including Orthodox hierarchs. He had no shame… in fact, he boasted of it and tried to make US look bad. He’s one of the most obscene warmongers in Washington. He calls himself a “Christian”… he lies. There are Orthodox who defend this pig, who defend the Republican Party. Here’s the moral dilemma… if you support Republicans for their supposed “Pro-Life” stance (actually, it’s anti-abortion, not pro-life, but there’s no space for that argument here), you support those who hate our Holy Faith, who want to rape our Holy Motherland, who want to export their demonic neoliberalism and their false sectarianism. There’s no getting around it. Even without bringing anything else into it, we must know the Republican Party hates Holy Rus and wants to destroy it. They set their Uniate and schismatical attack dogs on Holy Rus. Turdchinov, one of the worst of the junta, is a sectarian apostate.

Orthodox Christians… you have a choice. You may stand for Holy Rus or you may stand for the Demonic Republican agenda. There are no other options for us. You MUST choose. I’ve chosen, I don’t think that it’s a secret where I stand. WHERE DO YOU STAND? This is a full-blown moral dilemma… people like Rod Dreher who make it into cartoonish simplistic twaddle do us no favours. There’s NO “totally pure” option, yet, we must choose one or the other imperfect alternative. That’s the way of it in life… those who say otherwise are juvenile simpletons.

We stand at a crossroads…


Monday, 9 February 2015

9 February 2015. The People’s Sniper or the Oligarch’s Sniper… Who’s Number One on YOUR Hit Parade?

00 Red Sniper vs Hegemonic Sniper. 09.02.15.jpg-large


Who’s your fave? Chris Kyle or L M Pavlichenko? Do you stand with the people or with the banksters? Do you want socialistic coöperation or do you want nihilistic crapitalism? Which side ARE you on?


Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,091 other followers