Opinion: The Russian Orthodox Church: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Under the guise of an Orthodox cassock, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) operates in tandem with the Russian state, to promote Moscow’s will globally. A new book, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Russian Orthodox Church’s Threat to European Security and Democracy, delves into the unchecked danger posed by this beacon of Kremlin influence. Kyiv Post speaks to its co-authors Miceál O’Hurley and Oksana Shadrina.

For someone coming to your book fresh, what is the central argument you want them to remember about how the Russian Orthodox Church operates inside Russia’s state system, and why that matters for European security and democracy?

The ROC no longer operates like a normal Church nor believes like traditional Orthodoxy. Objectively, the Moscow Patriarchate has all the attributes of a Russian state organ. They encourage the faithful to believe their allegiance to the Russian Orthodox faith is inseparable from their allegiance to the state and vice versa. The traditional symphonia between the Church and state has been replaced by the ROC having willingly integrated itself as a soft power projector of Russian policy, culture, politics and ambitions. At times, this extends to active espionage against the West, which they call Satanic.

The recent attack upon Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Constantinople indicates a disturbing dynamic between the ROC and Kremlin. The lack of objection from Patriarch Kirill or ROC/ROCOR [Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia] clergy concerning Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service maligning the Ecumenical Patriarch and speaking ex cathedra for the Church on matters of ecclesiology and theology indicates the ROC/ROCOR’s subservience and agreement.

Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Kirill share a common goal – establishing a Russkiy Mir [Russian World]. Their efforts are directed at dividing the world into spheres of influence and imposing Russian leadership. The SVR’s [Russia’s foreign intelligence service] ad hominem attack on the Ecumenical Patriarch represents a widening of Russia’s hybrid warfare methodology. Together, Putin and Patriarch Kirill would replace Constantinople by elevating Moscow to the center of Orthodoxy in fulfilment of a long-discounted, heretical “Third Rome” prophecy.

When you assess the Russian Orthodox Church as an influence network, not only a religious institution, what are the main security risks in the way it operates, in Ukraine and across Europe?

Religious freedom is an ethic so dear it is enshrined in the West’s foundational documents. The West must have the courage of its convictions to find legislative and regulatory ways that balance freedom and security. Clergy residence and visa permits are generally liberalized to give voice to Europe’s and North America’s religious freedom ethic. If it continues to honor residence permits for ROC clergy where there is an evidentiary history of preaching war, crafting the “near abroad” to prioritize Russia over their European homes, engaging in politics abroad and committing espionage, then it shouldn’t enjoy religious freedom protections.

Look at the ROC’s public subversion of Europe. In last year’s Moldovan elections the ROC gave all-expense paid pilgrimages to Moldovan Orthodox clergy. The Moldovan clergy were then plied with prepaid credit cards, in some instances equaling more than a year’s wages, on the condition those clergy agreed to re-post Russian propaganda on their personal social media as well as parish web sites. Clergy get certain protections and privileges, not to corrupt European elections or social cohesion, but to preach the Gospel. The abuse of this must stop.

The ROC’s ever-expanding property portfolio in Europe is troublesome. It includes properties overlooking sensitive government buildings, water infrastructure projects, military bases and even a NATO airport, which raises legitimate security concerns. Analysis of the ROC property portfolio reveals they have routinely prioritized surveillance proximity over religious settings. Hardly a news cycle passes without some European country expelling a member of the ROC clergy having been caught in activities that undermine a European state’s security. There are examples of ROC nuns having been expelled from states from Ireland to Switzerland for selling religious goods then funneling the money to the Russian military. In the United States, a Moscow Patriarchate employee’s laptop was found to contain illegally wire-tapped phone conversations seeking kompromat on Orthodox Christian leaders and critics as part of a long-term, joint SVR-Moscow Patriarchate operation. The threat is not benign.

Russia represses religious minorities at home and in occupied territories, yet claims Ukraine is “persecuting believers” when Kyiv limits Russian religious leverage. Why does that accusation gain traction in Western media and institutions, and how should we judge Ukraine’s response, persecution or democratic self-defense? Do you believe that the Russian Church, in Ukraine, may be a tool of Russian government authorities?

Many in the West trusted ROCOR during the Soviet era as it was then a bastion of opposition, a beacon of religious freedom and promoter of Christian values. When ROCOR re-united with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 it came at a time of relative peace. The West believed that ROCOR had done its homework and reintegrated with the ROC firmly believing the Soviet mentality and corrosive nationalism within the ROC was a thing of the past. In 2008, Kirill (Gundyayev) was elected Moscow Patriarch. Things changed.

The Swiss exposed that he was a known KGB agent in Geneva when he served with the World Council of Churches. His nationalistic tendencies fit hand-in-glove with Putin, who rose to power with the ROC’s help, making the Moscow Patriarch fabulously wealthy in the exchange. By then, ROCOR had become submissive to the Moscow Patriarch coinciding with the Moscow Patriarchate becoming subordinate to Putin and the Kremlin. It happened before many in the West realized, with even fewer understanding Orthodoxy, its peculiarities and history.

There was a slow creep of the ROC towards its neo-imperialist persona in which it fully embraced the Holy Rus’ ideology imbued with Russian superiority as part of “God’s plan for humanity’s salvation” wasn’t understood in the West. It’s still not fully understood. Only recently we have groups taking a stand as in the 2022 Declaration on the Russian World Teaching and the 2025 Helsinki Conference publicly rejecting the ROC’s heresy and militancy. As for Western governments not realizing the risk? They now freely admit they failed to connect the dots between the ROC and armed Russian adventurism as in Georgia or Ukraine. Europe now feels genuinely threatened and not just by missiles.

As for the UOC-MP [Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate]? Despite claims to the contrary, it maintains ties to Moscow. Their collaboration with the Moscow Patriarchate in falsely claiming “religious persecution” in Western capitals shows them to be part of the Russian orbit. Consider that the Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (UCCRO) consists of 16 Churches and religious organizations and 1 interchurch body representing a full 95% of Ukrainian religious organizations. There is no outcry of “religious persecution” from them be they Orthodox, Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Muslims, Jews or of other faith confessions. With the ROC having declared a “Holy War” on Ukraine, it is difficult to understand why the UOC-MP doesn’t cut all ties to Moscow and comply with Ukrainian law. They alone remain unique in claiming “religious persecution,” indicating their objection is not religious but more a desire to maintain a political and cultural affinity to Russia.

As for the legality of Law 8371, it is universal in its application and is not directed at the UOC-MP, though their obdurate affiliation with Moscow made the law necessary. It doesn’t abridge European or universal human rights laws.

The record shows Ukraine’s judicial system works in balancing the state’s interest in prosecuting crime, maintaining domestic security and being attentive to the accused’s right of the presumption of innocence, due process and fairness. This is far more than Ukrainian Greek Catholic Fathers Ivan Levitsky and Bohdan Geleta received before they were extradited to Russia and held in captivity without due process of law– all based on meritless accusations.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church historically tied to Moscow says it has separated. What would real separation look like in concrete, verifiable terms, and what does your research suggest is happening in practice?

Our research leaves us un-convinced by the UOC-MP denials that they remain aligned with Moscow. The real tests remain twofold – one being religious/canonical and the other civil/legal.

Canonically, the 1990 Gramorta that established the UOC-MP as an autonomous part of the ROC continues to bind them. You can hear this in UOC-MP liturgies in which they publicly proclaim to be, “connected through our Russian Orthodox Church to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” That is abundantly clear if not dispositive.

In Orthodoxy, we don’t have legitimate and canonical local Churches that exist outside of the jurisdiction of a historic Patriarchate. If Metropolitan Onufriy has truly forsaken Moscow we would hear him commemorate one of the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy during the Divine Liturgy. We don’t. Nobody knows who he commemorates. Metropolitan Onufriy has options but chooses to maintain the UOC-MP’s affiliation with Moscow or remain offensive to canonical norms.

Is there a path that would remove the tensions between the UOC-MP and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), which is subordinate to Constantinople?

We speak to UOC clergy on an ongoing basis. They feel trapped. They had hoped Metropolitan Onufriy would negotiate the creation of an Exarchate with the Ecumenical Patriarchate that would allow them to function canonically yet with some autonomy within worldwide Orthodoxy.

They pray and hope such an arrangement would guarantee their autonomy and canonicity while giving them time to heal the divisions with the OCU and Metropolitan Epiphany. This is not the only option but it is one that history and prior precedence indicates could be good for the faithful, for Ukraine and be respectful of the UOC-MP clergy. The OCU has signaled willingness to engage in dialogue. Unfortunately, a path to peace and reconciliation is not being pursued by the OCU-MP leadership.

You and Oksana Shadrina argue that the ROC, ROCOR, and affiliated churches abroad can weaken European cohesion and attack the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with Russian intelligence now amplifying some of that messaging. What is the single most practical step European governments should take to reduce hostile influence while protecting genuine religious freedom?

There is huge difficulty in trying to legislate and regulate how Churches operate and what they teach, and remain faithful to the premise of religious freedom. However, when you see videos of an ROC priest, on the ambo, holding up an AK-74 rifle and pleading with the faithful to donate money for the Russian military to kill Ukrainians, it becomes clear that this is not a matter of faith or religion. Addressing who is teaching and leading the faithful becomes a critical safeguard and security concern. We have confidence states can regulate this without infringing on religious freedom. Despite the “persecution” rhetoric, Ukraine is already doing so.

It would be best, however, for an authentic Church to self-regulate and ban preaching of war, division, hate, propaganda and justifying killing out of a sense of fidelity to the Church. Ultimately, each Christian must ask themselves, do I want to hear about peace, love, compassion, community and forgiveness or triumph, power, war, destruction and ethnic superiority. I think Ukrainians have shown they would rather go hungry, freeze and even give their lives before tasting the bitter fruit on offer from their invaders who claim to be doing God’s work, all evidence to the contrary. Europe admires the fidelity, determination and innate goodness the Ukrainian people demonstrate daily.

Europe must be more vigilant. After all, building a church for quiet contemplation and liturgies outside of housing areas and a mere 300 meters from busy commercial and NATO runway where jet engines drown out thought, reveals menace not peace. I can think of no genuine religious benefit for the ROC nor the public in creating intelligence observation posts disguised as temples. We must name things for what they are.

Where can the book be purchased? 

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Russian Orthodox Church’s Threat to European Security and Democracy is published by Ibidem and Columbia University Press. In Europe it can be purchased directly from Ibidem; in North America from Columbia University Press and through Amazon, Barnes and Nobel and other booksellers.

Oksana Shadrina, a psychologist, is a native of Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine and graduate of Taras Shevchenko National University.

Miceál O’Hurley is an award-winning journalist, commentator and author specializing in security and defense issues. Their book, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Russian Orthodox Church’s Threat to European Security and Democracy, is now available.

Original Post