Nerves on edge: Why DESS is going after UOC's lawyers
The hearings in DESS's lawsuit against the Kyiv Metropolia are unfolding very differently from what Victor Yelensky appears to have expected.
Ukraine's State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience (DESS) has released an unusually emotional statement attacking lawyers representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. More than a routine press release, it reads like a document written under mounting pressure.
The language speaks for itself.
DESS accuses the UOC's international legal counsel, Robert Amsterdam, of having "spared no effort to undermine foreign assistance to Ukraine, smear its leadership, and distort the country's religious situation." It also brands his work as "disinformation."
Yet the agency offers no evidence whatsoever – no quotations, no examples, no proof. The accusations are simply asserted as fact.
The anxiety within Yelensky's team is not difficult to understand.
In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Amsterdam repeatedly highlighted a deeply uncomfortable issue for the DESS chief – that during the Soviet era, Yelensky authored antisemitic publications, praised Lenin, and wrote articles directed against the Church. Those are explosive allegations, and ones DESS would clearly rather not see discussed internationally.
The same pattern appears in the agency's attack on Protodeacon Vadym Novynskyi. DESS claims he "places full responsibility for Russia's armed aggression on Ukraine."
But Novynskyi's own words, spoken in the very same interview with Carlson, directly contradict that assertion: "Under no circumstances do I justify Russia or the Russian authorities for committing this act of aggression against Ukraine."
So why is the government body responsible for religious affairs making claims that are so easily checked against the public record?
The answer seems increasingly obvious.
The court proceedings over DESS's lawsuit against the Kyiv Metropolia are not going according to plan. The authorities expected the legal campaign against the governing center of the UOC to reach its conclusion long ago. Instead, the case continues to drag on.
A major reason is the work of the Church's legal team – and the determination of ordinary believers.
More than 10,000 faithful have already sought to join the proceedings as third parties, and that number continues to grow. Every new application complicates the case and makes a quick ruling increasingly unlikely.
Against that backdrop, the irritation in DESS's public statements becomes easier to understand.
The agency now insists that the UOC is suing merely "for the right to remain part of the Russian Orthodox Church" while supposedly hiding this from its own faithful. According to DESS, believers have allegedly been kept in the dark for more than a year.
The implication is striking – that tens of thousands of parishioners are incapable of reading the lawsuit themselves or understanding what the government's demands actually are.
DESS writes: "In conversations with many believers, it became clear that they do not understand the meaning of the Order or what exactly the Ukrainian state is demanding from the Kyiv Metropolia."
Who these "many believers" are – and where these conversations supposedly took place – the agency never says.
Given that several other claims in the statement are presented without supporting evidence, there is little reason to accept this one at face value either.
The stakes could hardly be higher.
For DESS, the lawsuit against the Kyiv Metropolia is far more than a single legal dispute. It is the cornerstone of a broader campaign against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. A victory here could open the door to further actions involving the Pochaiv Lavra, the Holosiiv Monastery, diocesan administrations, and numerous other UOC institutions.
Yet despite intense pressure from the state, that breakthrough has not come.
The courtroom has proved far more complicated than anticipated. That may explain why the rhetoric coming from DESS has grown increasingly sharp – and increasingly defensive. And there is every reason for the agency to be concerned.
If the case ultimately collapses, uncomfortable questions will inevitably be asked – not of the Church's lawyers, but of those who launched the campaign in the first place.
