The paper represents the interim results of a study conducted by the Russian Expert School Research Centre and reveals the politics, as well as scientifi c and expert mechanisms, used by the United States when applying the religious factor for geopolitical purposes. It also examines the way the United States exploits the religious agenda to put the direct political pressure on Russia. The purpose of the study is to identify the mechanisms used by the United States to deliver international pressure on world Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1998, the USA adopted the Law on International Religious Freedom, which secured the right of the USA to interfere with religious processes occurring in other countries. For the practical implementation of this law, the United States established an extensive network of governmental institutions, as well as non-governmental structures, formally independent from the government but closely related to it, that would provide ideological, political and administrative support in this area. These institutions and structures involved off icials, scientists, experts, journalists, religious leaders and theologians interested in promoting American national interests. In the 2000s, the weakening of the international infl uence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the weakening of Russia’s role as the centre of world Orthodoxy became the key direction for the international religious policy of the United States. The USA used the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the main tool to split the Russian Church and world Orthodoxy. The strongest strike intended to reduce the infl uence of the Russian Church was infl icted by the United States in Ukraine, where, after the coup d’etat 2014, the сanonical Orthodox Church (Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate) found itself in the most vulnerable position. The United States has launched a system struggle against the Russian Orthodox Church, which includes theological, expert and media levels, as well as events of direct (administrative and physical) pressure on the Moscow Patriarchate parishes. The United States aims the global vector of this activity at dividing and weakening world Orthodoxy, and the local one — at destroying historical spiritual ties between Orthodoxy in Russia and Orthodoxy in Ukraine.

The principles of freedom of conscience and of non-discrimination on religious and national grounds, forming the basis of international declarations and constitutions of most states of the world, have become a great historical achievement of mankind. However, at a certain stage, the freedom of conscience became a political tool. This was caused by the desire of Western governments, mainly the United States, to create their own democracy canon that could be introduced into other societies and states, making them open to American interests. The religious factor has acquired a great political signifi cance both in regional and global confl icts, and in the struggle between neoliberal anti-traditionalism and identism, which protects the right of nations, cultures and conservative religions to preserve their identity, instead of transforming along with the pattern of left-liberal elites, LGBT communities, feminists and environmentalists. Neoliberalism, or anti-traditionalism, eagerly brands any declaration of civilizational identity as “xenophobia” and “fascism”. Religion has become one of the main fi elds, where the struggle between identity and anti-traditionalism or “liberal democracy” takes place. The article highlights several areas, where the religious freedom is used as a technology in real politics. The fi rst one is the democratization of legislation in individual countries and the adjustment of its provisions related to the freedom of conscience, the status of religious associations and the regulation of their activity. The second one is the shaping of public opinion and the formation of public interest organizations that promote the principles of religious freedom and act in line with the neoliberal understanding of democracy and the norms of political correctness. The third one is interreligious round tables and trainings with the participation of public off icials, religious leaders and public associations, which is something other than just an interreligious dialogue. They “equalize” Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Protestants in the public fi eld. The principles of religious freedom that the society and the state need in the context of Western anti-traditionalism have become their opposite. Pluralism and religious diversity started to be used as the primary target, since they both most closely corresponded to the demands of American liberal democracy and world anti-identity. The current religious freedom turned out to be far from the tolerance of the Peace of Westphalia. Instead of peaceful coexistence, the new concept of the freedom of conscience, on the contrary, often suggests the oppression of dominant churches and traditions.

No other religious denomination in the world, no church other than the Orthodox one can “boast” that the entire American state is at war on it. This mainly concerns the Russian Orthodox Church. This article is devoted to non-theological and even political aspects of the aforementioned confrontation. The article considers the political and technological aspects of the struggle between the US and Orthodoxy. Here we can highlight the main political and technological twist that the Americans use, namely the stratagem called “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”. It consists in the fact that no serious institutions declare themselves as antireligious or taking the anti-Orthodox position. On the contrary, they simulate Orthodox institutions using specifi c names and signboards. The higher the decision-making level in the war with Orthodoxy, the less open anti-Orthodox invectives are noticeable. At high-level forums, they too are not talking about somehow pushing Orthodoxy out of the dialogue or turning it into an unwelcome denomination. On the contrary, the conversation held is rather about some kind of coercion to dialogue, and the counterparties express their displeasure and disappointment with the position often taken by the Orthodox Christians, namely the position of non-participation in all kinds of ecumenical forums and meetings. They want to hug us to death. They hug us, but we shy away. Ecumenical forums are the main environment that is designed to shake the Orthodox faith. How to resist this “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” technology? The apostolic fathers said there is no other way than to expose falsehood and forgery. In the case of “a lost sheep”, patient attention, participation, preaching, and so on are required from the church authorities and priests. But where we see a malicious and deliberate distortion of Orthodox truths, where people themselves have separated themselves from the Church, but remain in it formally in order to “correct” the Church itself, to continue to harm it, in these cases the church authorities need to be merciless.

The article evaluates the study by Vasily Shchipkov, “Systemic Pressure of the United States on the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ideological and Geopolitical Confrontation”. Next, it considers the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church from 1990 till present from the point of view of its involvement in political and geopolitical processes. Specifi cally, the Serbian Orthodox Church acted as a subject of political infl uence from the United States and European countries. The article specifi es fi ve periods that diff ered in the vector of the Western policy towards the Serbian Church: 1 — the period of socialism (before the fall of the Berlin Wall), 2 — the period of the rule of Slobodan Milošević (1990–2000), 3 — the period of the Western infl uencer network creation (from October 5, 2000 till 2010), 4 — the period of strengthening of the Western ideology in the Serbian Orthodox Church (from 2010 till 2017), 5 — the period of geopolitical pressure of the West on the Serbian Orthodox Church (from 2017 till present). While analyzing each historical period, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that until 2017, the major pressure vector on the Serbian Church was the ideological one, which allowed to form and institutionalize the liberal, modernist, inclusive, anational theology as an infl uential alternative to traditional conservative national theology. Supporters of the liberal, pro-Western worldview started to hold many key positions in the church hierarchy. Starting from 2017, this allowed the West to proceed with direct lobbying its political agenda within the Serbian Church through its infl uencers. In the current situation, the West is interested in at tracting the Serbian Church to its side in the geopolitical confrontation with Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. As a result, the Serbian Church found itself in a challenging situation: the failure to comply with the demands of the West might lead to the rejection of foreign dioceses in favour of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, while the compliance with the demands of the West will consolidate its role as an anti-Orthodox policy tool and might also lead to the internal schism.

The article examines the problem of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An assessment is given to the hypothesis that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is only a tool for promoting American political interests in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. The author proceeds from the fact that the reason for the invasion of Constantinople in the canonical territory of the Russian orthodox Church, which led to the rupture of eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and Constantinople Orthodox Church, is rooted in the peculiarities of the ecclesiology of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Historical examples of the interaction between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and political forces hostile to Orthodoxy are given, from which it can be concluded that the achievement of their own goals, the most essential of which is the strengthening of primacy among Orthodox churches, is set higher by the Patriarchate of Constantinople than the preservation of the unity of Orthodoxy. An assumption is made about the possibility of the infl uence exerted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the Russian Orthodox Church through the laity and clergy being in sympathy with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The article analyzes the foundation of the Lithuanian Diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which tends to form a long-term threat of new schisms in the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, primarily in Belarus. It is noted that the foundation of the Lithuanian Diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly to the non-canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine, both are constituents of a single long-term strategy to drive the Russian Orthodox Church out of territories that were parts of the Metropolis of Kyiv of the Patriarchate of Constantinople up to 1686.

This article examines and analyzes the discriminatory processes in Ukraine against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the discriminatory processes in the European Union countries against the Russian Orthodox Church. It specifi es the major publications highlighting the facts of discrimination against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The article also mentions the documents of the European Parliament, which have been used as the justifi cation for restricting the activity of the Russian Orthodox Church. These documents have become an aid for the introduction of unprecedented targeted sanctions against Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia by countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Such gross interference by politicians in the activity of Orthodox churches is becoming the norm of political life in countries such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as evidenced by the actions taken by the politicians of these countries and mentioned in the article. Moreover, the article fi gures out the understanding of the crisis in the international human rights movement with regard to rights and freedoms of religious organizations. The article highlights cases when Ukrainian human rights defenders became authors of anti-church laws, and the well-known Amnesty International human rights organization apologized for their report on the alleged war crimes by the Zelensky’s regime. Double standards in the assessment of off ense seriousness in Ukraine are clearly illustrated by the example of the fi rst three reports of the Monitoring Mission that was deployed in Ukraine in March 2014 by the Off ice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This mission was represented by more than 30 employees in fi ve Ukrainian cities: Kyiv, Donetsk, Odessa, Kharkiv and Lviv. These reports included a section dedicated to the observance of rights and freedoms of religious organizations in Ukraine. The article mentions the incidents recorded by the Monitoring Mission and the facts of discrimination against clerics and members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church highlighted in mass media. It is noted that the Monitoring Mission recorded mainly cases of discrimination against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and other religious organizations. Violations of rights and freedoms of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were not only ignored, but sometimes its activity was characterized in documents as “aggressive”.

The study “Systemic Pressure of the United States on the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ideological and Geopolitical Confrontation” is defi nitely a highly relevant and in-demand analytical document highlighting the hidden processes of the U.S. interference with the religious life of various countries of the world, where Orthodoxy historically has been playing a signifi cant role in the life of society. The attention is focused on the international law, which has become a powerful stranglehold on the domestic policy of countries that acknowledge it, and after the First World War has become a legal way for the victorious countries, that is, stronger countries, to put pressure on the rest of the world. In particular, initially England, and then the United States, turned to the humanistic rhetoric, thereby skillfully using international organizations such as the League of Nations and the UN, as well as the international law in general, to consolidate their special position in the world. It is noted that today the United States has assumed the role of the world guardian of order and, by appealing to international legal documents, interferes with the domestic policy of other countries, including the religious one, if it deviates from the domestic policy of the West. Our review is aimed at revealing the key points of the chapter “Ukraine Being the Focus of the Geopolitical Struggle Against Orthodoxy”, which, in light of recent events related to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, is a clear example of the struggle launched against Orthodoxy. The author of the article lays a special emphasis on key points related to the introduction into the mass consciousness of the thesis on the fusion of the state and the church, as well as the reasons and prerequisites for the creation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, all based on the participation of the U.S. institutions in the transformation of the church life in Ukraine, cited by the authors of the study. The conclusion is made about the signifi cance of the undertaken study for the correct interpretation of the current situation around the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The assessment is also given to the forecast made by the authors of the study.