The “Unity” of the entirety of the Christian Orthodox world, thought to be dominated by Moscow, was merely a showcase of Religious Isolationism.
The “Brotherhood of faith” is a standard motive, when one considers the historical path that Ukraine has bargained towards – more than three and a half centuries ago. The typical Soviet academic historiography, school books, filmography and even… toasts – are all hard stone evidence of this. The Slavic peoples of Europe, in the context of this “brotherhood”, are split into two groups: “ours” and “alien”. “Ours” in this case means the “correct” type, the Orthodox Slavs. The “alien” type are of course non-Orthodox, and hence not even real Slavs. Hard to believe isn’t it? Just asking common Russians and Belarusians might change your mind. They have abided by this rhetoric for as long as one can remember as a result of everlasting historical agitprop. The expected response of common Russian and Belarusians as usual would refer to the ‘cradle’ of three brotherly peoples, surrounded by hostile neighbours, which would always push them to a common ground in order to supposedly defend from external threats… on the basis of a common Orthodox faith. From a broader view, such a hypothetical conversation would also include hints of “our brotherly” Serbs, who were targeted by Turks, and nowadays, by NATO.
The long history of the tales of the common beginnings of Slavic cultures which were born in Kyivan Rus’, somehow always end up being cultivated to paint Russia as the sole heir and defendant of Rus’. However, is there any historical evidence to even mildly support this claim? One can read about the implausibility of this notion in an article by Maksym Yaremenko (here), however I would like to draw the reader’s attention to one key aspect of the article which can provide a sufficient overview for the time being. Historians of the XVI-XVIII centuries have noted a significant cultural distance between the Muscovian (i.e. Moscow) Christian Orthodoxy and the Orthodox population of the Polish Commonwealth. Ukrainians and Belarusians which served under the Polish Commonwealth (and they were large in numbers) were regarded as “poisoned” by “Latinisation” and were subject to re-Christianisation. As a consequence, the “alien” Orthodox believer was therefore subject to conversion and even confession. Being part of the other, the “alien” type of Orthodoxy was considered a sin and put the sincerity faith itslef under question. Interestingly enough, the first legal norms regarding this fact at the level of the church and state are noticeable from the first rulers of the Romanov dynasty – tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich and his father, patriarch Filaret.
Un-brotherlike treatment of the so-called “Cherkasy” and Belarusians could be an exception if the Kremlin and its elite did not mistreat other “brothers” of faith and Slavs (Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians) as well as Greeks and Romanians. The career paths to religious service, diplomacy or the military were always preceded by “cleansing”. This would lead to many more possibilities, including materialistic enrichment, followed by relative immunity and naturalisation. As strange as it may seem, the Muscovian Orthodox faith and its elite never considered the moral hazard arising from forced conversion, “cleansing” or re-christianisation by force. The use of such examples of force was in fact documented in wars (conversion of catholics and protestants) towards POWs in wars. Forced conversions of such character meant that the prisoners would lose the opportunity to be exchanged and return to their homeland. Henceforth, the “common beginnings” of the Orthodox faith, claimed to be dominated by Moscow, was false. In fact, the Moscow axis of Orthodoxy was just a form of religious isolationism. In opposition to this form of religion, would be an open religious structure, characterised by its open-minded and tolerant mentality. Moscow’s axis on Orthodoxy is repressive, as it sees any open-mindedness or intellectual diversity as a threat to its existence.
Times are changing, isolationism in religion as a political tool has given rise to Prolyterism, a form of forced conversion and recruitment into one’s own system of political beliefs. Orthodoxy in a highly ideological Russia, strongly took hold its place within the state and national policy. The stakes in “owning” Orthodox heritage have thus grown: from financing eastern patriarchs, who have not had the prior respect, to diplomatic missions in orthodox establishments and military delegations around the world (where Orthodox priests were deemed to be the victims of oppression such as the Middle East and Balkans). The high stakes don’t seem to be a concern for Russia today and the “World of Orthodox Christianity” are a core component of Russian imperial ideologues of today. Such ideologues are well aware that an “Orthodox World” is a better tool than any other, that can assimilate a large population. However, the construction of this mechanism does not have religious aims, but rather political aims. As before, in order to become “ours” and not “alien”, one must leave one’s identity behind and adopt a new one – the new status quo of a new faith. This ultimately results in political allegiance. Afterwards, one will be “blessed” and “defended”, even against one’s will.
