Propaganda against the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine

The Battle for the Soul of Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Future Trends and Geopolitical Stakes

The religious landscape in Eastern Europe is currently a primary battlefield for identity, legitimacy, and political influence. At the heart of this struggle is the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and its quest for canonical stability in the face of persistent efforts to delegitimize it.

For the uninitiated, the tension isn’t just about theology; it’s about who holds the keys to the spiritual life of millions. As we look toward the future, several key trends are emerging that will define the trajectory of Orthodoxy in the region.

The War of Legitimacy: Canonical Status vs. Schismatic Narratives

One of the most potent weapons in the current conflict is the use of propaganda to blur the lines between official church structures and schismatic groups. A recurring tactic involves attempting to link the canonical OCU, led by Metropolitan Epifaniy, to the non-canonical “Kyiv Patriarchate.”

The distinction is critical. While the OCU emerged from a process of unification and repentance in 2018—formally dissolving previous schismatic structures—a small, fragmented group continues to call itself the “Kyiv Patriarchate.” This group, operating without canonical recognition and often meeting in improvised settings, is frequently used as a “straw man” to suggest that the OCU is merely a continuation of a schism.

The “Hotel Room” Church and the Erosion of Influence

The recent events following the repose of Filaret in March 2026 highlight a stark trend: the marginalization of schismatic remnants. When a new “Kyiv Patriarch” was reportedly elected in a Kyiv hotel room while a funeral service was taking place elsewhere, it signaled the transition of such groups from influential players to footnotes in ecclesiastical history.

The future trend here is clear: as the OCU solidifies its administrative hold and gains more grassroots support, these fragmented schismatic groups will likely fade, leaving a binary choice for believers: the autocephalous national church or the Russian-affiliated structures.

Faith as a Fortress: The Geopolitics of Autocephaly

The granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I was more than a religious decree; it was a strategic move to preserve the Orthodox faith within Ukraine.

Historically, when Orthodox populations feel their church is being used as a tool for foreign imperial interests, they often migrate toward Catholicism or Uniatism. This “Baltic Scenario”—seen in Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland—could have easily repeated in Ukraine if a national, independent church had not been established.

The Decline of the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir)

For decades, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has operated as a spiritual arm of the Russian Federation. However, the trend is shifting toward a total “de-Russification” of faith. Many Ukrainian believers now find the term “Russian” unacceptable in a religious context due to the ongoing devastation of war.

We can expect the structures still affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate to face increasing pressure to formally sever ties. The narrative that these bodies are “independent” while still commemorating Patriarch Kirill of Moscow is becoming an unsustainable fiction for the general public.

Global Implications for the Orthodox World

The situation in Ukraine is a litmus test for the canonical order of the global Orthodox community. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has asserted its role as the final adjudicator of disagreements between churches, a move that Moscow has vehemently rejected.

Looking ahead, we are likely to see:

• Increased Polarization: A deepening rift between the “Greek” (Constantinople-aligned) and “Slavic” (Moscow-aligned) spheres of influence.
• New Autocephaly Requests: Other nations under the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate may seek their own independence, citing the Ukrainian model.
• Legal Battles: A surge in litigation over church properties and assets as the state moves to restrict the influence of foreign-controlled religious entities.

For more insights on how religious identity intersects with national security, check out our previous analysis on [Internal Link: The Intersection of Faith and State in Eastern Europe].

Frequently Asked Questions