Voices from Russia

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Ideology of Ukrainian Statehood Built on Rotten Spiritual Foundation

00 Kiev Riot. the Ukraine. 05. 19.01.14


With great sadness, I read what the so-called “Metropolitan” of Cherkassky said and Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky’s answer to it. Firstly, both sides used unacceptable methods; they both showed despicable behaviour towards their opponents. It didn’t match the moment’s importance, the rank of Metropolitan’s dignity, or the Minister of Culture’s position. Vladyki Sofrony was utterly wrong when he used the word “thug” in relation to the President of Russia, to which the Ukraine owes so much. In particular, it was reckless to say such at an explosive moment, when one careless word could affect the lives of thousands of people. On the other hand, of course, the tone of the Minister of Culture’s attitude to the bishop was unacceptable. It was openly mocking and anticlerical.

With all due deference to Vladyki Sofrony, one should recognise that when he talks about existing problems that he isn’t right in many respects. Unfortunately, Medinsky is right about that. I remember Bishop Sofrony when he was an Archimandrite… unfortunately, I don’t recognise him today. I remember him in the early ‘90s, grieving over the crimes and iniquities committed by Filaret’s gang. He told his spiritual children that Filaret was a great sinner. Today, rising in the ranks of the opponents of the Russian World, he wittingly or unwittingly allied himself with the Filaretovtsy (“supporters of Filaret” in Russian).

The Minister of Culture was correct to state that the Ukrainian identity, as such, only arose in the twentieth century. This was partly due to the Soviet government, partly due to Austria and Poland. The word “Ukraine” speaks volumes. It means that it’s an outlier of the Russian World. The Power and the Glory of the Ukraine resides in the fact that it’s “Little Rus” (Малая Русь), i.e. “Primary” Rus {much as Slavs use the word “little ones” to mean children: editor}. The word “little” means the metropolis there was the starting point of the movement that created historical Russia. The so-called Ukraine… Little Russia… from time immemorial had inextricable links with the Russian World.

You can tell this from the names of great saints and cultural figures… St Dmitri of Rostov, Bortnyansky, Gogol, Yanovsky, and many others… they show that Kiev is the “Mother of all Russian Cities”, not so much the capital of the independent Ukraine. To forget this is criminal. That tramples on the legacy of those who saw themselves as part of Holy Rus, who saw themselves primarily as native Orthodox and Russian. That tramples on the memory of those Cossacks and peasants led by Bogdan Khmelnitsky and his successors, who fought to be in the Tsardom of Russia. It tramples on the memory of those who didn’t follow Mazepa, who remained faithful to Orthodoxy and Russia. The service in memory of the Battle of Poltava stated, “Yes, the Apostles commemorate those who didn’t agree with the second Judas, Mazepa”. That the contemporary Ukrainian identity builds on the principles of Mazepa, and declares Mazepa a historical hero of the Ukraine and places his picture on Ukrainian money is derisory and criminal. It’s as if Israel printed banknotes with the image of Judas Iscariot. You can’t create a state on a cult of traitors such as Mazeppa. He betrayed the Tsar, people, and Orthodoxy, by letting the Swedish invaders into Russia. A state can’t applaud traitors, terrorists, and losers such as Bandera, who tarnished his hands with the blood of his people and, in the end, didn’t do anything positive and succeeded in nothing.

By definition, a state with such a spiritual basis isn’t sustainable, and the fate of the post-Soviet Ukraine is abundant proof of that. It’s because the Lord doesn’t suffer those who don’t establish him in power and glory, He sends them affliction… all these revolts and revolutions have a rotten spiritual foundation, built upon mutiny and rebellion against their Russian origins. However, Dostoevsky rightly observed that rebellion couldn’t lay down a real basis for life. That’s why the contemporary Ukraine continually faces tribulations, failure, revolution, and upheaval. I say this with full forethought, as a man with Little Russian background, so, I understand and share the suffering of ordinary Ukrainians, of simple Little Russians. Nevertheless, if the Little Russian people don’t return to the Universal Orthodox Church’s unity, if they don’t return to the Russian world, they face an unpleasant future, their troubles will continue until the final destruction of the Ukrainian state, the final destruction of the Ukrainian people.

It’s impossible not to worry about the fact that this filthy Russophobia infects some Ukrainian clergy, who’re too close to the schismatical Filaretovtsy. They organised a joint conference between some members of the UOC/MP and the so-called schismatic “Archbishop” Evstraty Zorya, where they criticised the idea of the Russian World, where, in utter insubordination, Fr Georgi Kovalenko slammed Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev of Moscow and all the Russias. It’s a highly disturbing symptom when inopportune nationalism dominates some Orthodox clergy to the point that certain members of the UOC/MP are in danger of succumbing to the heresy of phyletism.

What is this “open evil” by Russia that ”Archbishop” Evstraty speaks about? For over 20 years, the Ukraine violated the rights of Russian people; it flouted and ridiculed their language, it contemptuously called them “Katsap”, it defamed VOV veterans and tried to equate the SS and Banderovtsy to them. It spat on the memory of the heroes of the VOV, who shed their blood in the in the name of the Russian World’s unity, for the sake of Ukrainian and Russian unity, it defiled the memory of hundreds of thousands victims killed by the Germans and their nationalist collaborators simply for being Russian or supporters of the Russian World, along with thousands of Jews and Poles… shouldn’t we call that evil? If during 1989-91 nationalists undermined the USSR with the slogan, “The right of nations to self-determination, including secession”, one wonders why, now, when the same principle that established the modern Ukraine now turns against them, when it brought those in the southern and eastern Ukraine to the point that they no longer want to live in such a state, why do they deny it?

In 1991, the founders of the new Ukrainian state made a fundamental error. They should’ve built a state as a Russian-Ukrainian federation, based on equality of languages, with an identity within the Russian identity, an identity within the Russian world. Instead, they chose the aggressive shtetl identity of Galicia, the Banderovtsy’s identity. Now, they reap the fruits of the evil they sowed. The fact that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin wishes an ingathering of the Russian World, that he didn’t hinder, indeed, he helped the peoples of the Crimea enter into the Russian Federation… how was this illegal, how was this evil? This is the same principle that the “Ukrainians” used in 1991; we’d note that they implemented it against the will of the majority of the Ukrainian people. In the Ukraine, 75 percent voted in favour of keeping the USSR.

Therefore, the question is, “What is evil?” This is especially relevant, since in canonical terms, the Local Church there is the MP. A “Ukrainian Orthodox Local Church” doesn’t exist; what’s very sad and disturbing is the fact that it they’re now trying to create one at any cost, even at the cost of reconciliation with evil, which is certainly what one should call the Filaretovtsy schism.


Deacon Vladimir makes a good point here. There are standards for public discourse, which differ according to one’s place. Clergy must follow certain norms (which get stricter as one moves up the line) in their public utterances and writings. As a priest once told me, “As a laywoman, you’re freer to state what you mean than I am. I’m a priest, which means that I must be more diplomatic”. Deacon Vladimir was right to castigate “Bishop” Evstraty and his UOC/MP cronies. Government officials must follow a different set of standards (again, which get stricter as one progresses up the chain of command). Thus, Deacon Vladimir was right in criticising Medin… he stepped outside of those bounds. Diplomats, scholars, bureaucrats, and journalists all have their “codes of conduct”. As a journalist, I can be more combative than a priest, official, bureaucrat, or diplomat can be. I can’t be as nasty as scholars often are (they have the loosest canons of all (or, are the “loosest cannons of all”… I couldn’t resist the pun)… they cover it up with “speech codes” and whatnot, but they’re the least inhibited of all in the public sphere, as academic infighting testifies to).

Deacon Vladimir makes interesting points on Ukrainianism… I’d say that the recent crisis did one thing, it ended the period where Russians stood silent before Banderovtsy lies. We punch back… and we punch harder. The bear IS back… and he ain’t pleased…

31 March 2014

Deacon Vladimir Vasilik

Kandidat of Philological Science

Dotsent, Faculty of History St Petersburg State University (SPBGU)

Russkaya Narodnaya Liniya


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 4 November 2013

Tsarist Obelisk Unveiled Near Kremlin with Soviet Changes Removed

00 Romanov obelisk in the Kremlin. Mosow RUSSIA. 04.11.13


On Monday, Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev of Moscow and all the Russias and senior Russian officials attended the opening of a restored Tsarist-era obelisk outside the Kremlin walls. The monument was originally unveiled 99 years ago to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, but Vladimir Lenin ordered its tsarist iconography removed in 1918 and the names of famous international revolutionaries replaced those of the Romanov tsars. The renovated version unveiled Monday, criticised by some architectural preservation groups for poor quality work, reversed the communist-era changes. Patriarch Kirill said during the opening ceremony, “Today, we set right an unjust historical action”. Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky and Sergei Ivanov, the head of the Presidential Administration, also attended the unveiling. His Holiness said, “It was done so that we could be conscious of ourselves as a people united temporally and geographically. We can’t live in separation from our history”. In July, officials said that its condition had deteriorated and that it was in danger of collapsing, so they took it down and began restoration work. The architectural preservation group Arkhnadzor criticised the restoration work in a statement last week, noting that “false imitations of Romanov decoration” adorned the restored monument. The opening Monday coincided with the Day of National Unity, a holiday introduced by the Kremlin in 2005 to replace the communist holiday of 7 November celebrating the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

 4 November 2013



Editor’s Note:

Note well what HH said:

We can’t live in separation from our history.

Indeed. HH was a Soviet patriot and helped the KGB (intel, not secret police)… the USSR is part of Russian history, and HH doesn’t disparage it. The monarchists smirk today, but they’ll sing a different tune tomorrow. The Red Banner will fly over Moscow yet again… and no harm will come to the Church or to tsarist monuments. Maria Vladimirovna? She’s a clueless booby beloved of the woollier ROCOR sorts. Let them have her and her phony court full of imposters. Jordanville can gush over her all they want… she’s never going to sit on the throne… never ever… and that’s a relief for Russia.

It’s time to restore history… ALL of our history… and that INCLUDES the USSR. ‘Nuff said…


Monday, 28 January 2013

Russian Government Accuses Hasidic Group of Book Theft


The Hasids should stop this charade… all that it does is to reinforce anti-Semitism. They’re STOOPID if they can’t see that… it makes them look like the above poster. It’s counter-productive in all possible ways. They should get a life and they should stop their efforts to bully people through the courts… 


On Wednesday, an AmericanRussian row over religious texts intensified, when Moscow accused a Jewish group of a failure to return valuable books loaned to it over a decade ago. Last week, an American court imposed a 50,000 USD (1.51 million Roubles. 37,200 Euros. 31,900 UK Pounds) a day fine on Russia for failing to comply with an earlier order to hand over religious texts from the Schneerson collection of Jewish books to the Chabad-Lubavitch group, a Orthodox Jewish Hasidic movement based in Brooklyn NY.

On Wednesday, however, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hit back in kind and threatened legal action to return books he said that Moscow had loaned the group. He also called the American court’s decision “outrageous” and said that it had no basis in law, saying, “The Hasidics received some books from us from [the Schneerson Library] for temporary use, for a couple of months, more than ten years ago, and have yet to return them. This should also be the subject of court action”. Last week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the Schneerson collection is part of Russia’s national heritage and the state property of the Russian Federation.

The Schneerson Library is a collection of books and religious documents assembled by the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement over two centuries prior to World War II, in what is now Belarus. In 1918, the Bolsheviks nationalised part of the collection, amassed by Lubavitcher Rebbe Yosef Yitzchok Schneerson. Later, about 25,000 pages of manuscripts fell into the hands of the Nazis. Afterwards, the Red Army captured them and handed them over to the Russian State Military Archive. This part of the Schneerson Library is now in a central Moscow library. Schneerson, who emigrated in the 1930s, took the remaining part out of the USSR. Since 1994, when Menachem Schneerson died, leaders of the Brooklyn-based Orthodox Jewish movement have tried to regain possession of the library, claiming that the Soviet authorities illegally held it after the war.

In 1991, a Moscow court agreed to turn over the library to Chabad, but after the collapse of the USSR, the ruling became moot. Today, the Russian government says it wants to keep the archive for future scholars. In 2010, a court in Washington DC confirmed the American Jewish community’s right to the library, but Russia said the court’s decision was illegitimate. In late 2011, an American court ruled Russia must return about 12,000 books and 50,000 manuscripts from the library. On Wednesday, according to the AP, Seth Gerber, a lawyer for Chabad, said that the group would “seek to enforce the sanctions order by all legal means”. Under that law, a sovereign nation isn’t immune to lawsuits in cases where property is taken in violation of international law. Rabbi Yosef Cunin of Chabad said, “At the end of the day, all we want is our property back. No amount of money can replace it. Our religious heritage is priceless”.

The legal dispute over the Schneerson Library has caused Russian art institutions to cancel scheduled loans of world-renowned artworks to American art institutions for fear that they’d be seized, even though Chabad stated that it won’t go after any art deemed culturally significant by the US State Department. The Immunity from Seizure Act protects such art from legal claims. Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky described the American court ruling as a “Russophobic show”, telling a news conference sponsored by RIA-Novosti last week, “It was a strange Russophobic show grossly violating both American legislation, as admitted by the American administration, and all the norms of international law. By the same logic, [Moscow’s] Khamovniki District Court could open hearings on the status of Alaska”. He added that the claims by one of the American Hassidic groups to the Schneerson Library “are simply ridiculous”.

23 January 2013

Carl Schreck



Editor’s Note:

Let’s be clear. None of the American Hasid groups EVER owned the materials in question. NEVER EVER. They’ve no legal claim to the collection. NONE. Moreover, an American court has no jurisdiction over a collection resident in Russia. I note that the Moscow ruling in favour of the Hasids came during the Crazy Time of Gorbachyov the Destroyer and Yeltsin the Fool. That doesn’t count… that was when the Sovs (and the Russian successor state) kissed the West’s naked bum. Chabad never owned this collection… its claim to it is false, lying, and mendacious. Its true reason for wanting the collection is to restrict access to it to scholars who’re pro-Chabad (they’d even refuse access to other Hasids whom they don’t like).

Chabad deserves NOTHING. This sort of thing is grist to the mill of all anti-Semites. It fits all the stereotypes of the greedy grasping Yid. I hate anti-Semitism, but I’ve a right to speak when I see Jews acting in such a way to reinforce anti-Semitism. That’s not hatred… that’s good sense. If the Hasids want to use the collection, they can do so in Moscow… and the coppers should search ‘em afterwards. They’re not trustworthy; they’re weaselling liars, if they think that they can get away with it… you should hear my Jewish friends on “Hasidic honesty”. This is ridiculous. What a buncha maroons.


Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.