Analyst likens Bankova’s case against UOC to Stalin-era repression
Bondarenko said the way the authorities justify pressure on the Church may amount to the rhetoric of the totalitarian era.
Ukrainian political analyst Kostiantyn Bondarenko responded to statements by representatives of the Office of the President of Ukraine that justify persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, comparing the arguments being used to the logic of Stalinist repressions. He wrote about it on his Telegram channel.
Commenting on remarks by Vita Tytarenko, an adviser to the deputy head of the Presidential Office, who criticized UN experts and international human-rights organizations for not supporting the authorities’ policy in the religious sphere, Bondarenko noted that the very logic of such justifications is questionable.
According to Tytarenko, banning the UOC is allegedly fully justified by the number of criminal proceedings opened against its clergy.
“By that logic, one could use the number of cases opened in Stalin’s time as an argument proving the hostile and anti-people activity of hundreds of thousands of those repressed. Stalin was not a dictator – he was simply forced to fight enemies,” Bondarenko said.
He added ironically that in that case “Zelensky is not a petty tyrant or a despot either – because if you believe this logic, just look how many enemies they have ‘found’ in the UOC.”
As the UOJ reported earlier, the Presidential Office has previously claimed that the state is supposedly not banning the UOC, but “offering a choice” between transferring to the OCU or coming under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
