Abstract
Nicholas Denysenko’s The Church’s Unholy War: Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and Orthodoxy is a work of interdisciplinary research and analysis, placing the history of the orthodox churches in the two countries, and their complex relations at the centre. Crucially, it frames this analysis through the lens of the present conflict, demonstrating how church politics and employed tactics by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) contributed to the souring and eventual breakdown of mutual understanding, developing into open violence. Denysenko thus offers a non-conventional alternative to common justifications of the war in international relations scholarship, while expanding the application of liturgical history.
The purpose of Denysenko’s book, in his own words, is ‘to show how the long-standing disputes between the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches contributed to Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine’ (p. x). This is built on the foundations of the ROC as one of Russia’s modes of maintaining control in Ukraine, the latter of which is seen as indistinguishable from the common lands of the ‘historical Rus’. These myth-based historical ties between the peoples of Russia and Ukraine bring the wider issue of historical memory (p. 16) to the forefront. Crucially, Denysenko’s work is not the first to do so, with similar mnemonic analyses of Russia gaining momentum in recent years (Gaziza Shakhanova and Petr Kratochvil, The Patriotic Turn in Russia: Political Convergence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the State?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022; Jade McGlynn, Memory Makers: The Politics of the Past in Putin’s Russia, Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2023). Where the present book differs is in its scope, thus proposing to only tell a part of the story, the one focused on Ukraine and the ROC as a reinforcing repository of historical memory (p. 135).
The question asked by the author is relatively straightforward: How did religion contribute to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? In reply, Denysenko argues that as the orthodoxy in Ukraine became entangled in issues of nationalism and independence, the orthodox church in Ukraine sought to mirror these developments by breaking the influence of the ROC. The ROC responded through the tactics of soft power and information campaigns, prompting further Ukrainian resistance, culminating in the creation of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (OCU) in 2018–19. Viewing these latest developments as an act of aggression, the ROC’s subsequent actions garnered the full force of the Russian state, thus contributing to the deterioration of broader relations, and eventual descent into violence. This argument unfolds across seven thematic chapters, although they are also arranged in chronological order from the time of the Russian empire to present day. They trace the history of Ukrainian attempts at separation and independence from the ROC, resulting in the tactics of Russification, Ukrainization, history manipulation, and canonical penalties, gradually escalating towards hate speech campaigns and justifications of violence. Throughout, the analysis draws on historical methods of research, providing a nuanced way to understand church relations and escalation, rather than demonstrating direct lines of causation. Finally, Denysenko concludes with suggestions for potential pathways towards reconciliation, including the ROC disavowing Russian colonialism, Ukrainian refocusing away from campaigns of victimisation, and a focus on commonalities as a vehicle for a new form of reconciliation. Aside from these recommendations, the book makes two main contributions to the wider literature on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and church history: a thematic and interdisciplinary framing of the issue, and shedding light on the cycles of continuity and change in Russo-Ukrainian political and church relations.
Denysenko’s first major contribution is the book’s unusual position in the scholarship of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, supported by its thematic structure. Despite the presentation of an alternative explanation for the escalation towards violence and the advent of war, one that focuses on new actors, interests, and lines of history, the work does so in a clear manner, suitable for interdisciplinary study. The author manages to do this by providing a structured overview of the terminology of liturgical theology and history in the introduction, which introduces even those most unfamiliar with it to the world of orthodoxy and church institutions. Dealing as it does with the history of Russo-Ukrainian relations and conflict, the subsequent chapter contextualises the present-day war through a detailed analysis of the connection between the church and the state, orthodoxy and the development of nationalism in Ukraine. In the first chapter, the author thus makes an important point: ‘history is generational’ (p. 35), past grievances and justifications of conflict demonstrate a fundamental continuity, which is best not forgotten. This continuity through changing times is a key component of the historical analysis of Russo-Ukrainian church relations, and informs the cycles of action and reaction that are described in the next five chapters.
In the second chapter, Denysenko moves on to describe the budding tactics of the ROC used to keep Ukrainian orthodoxy in check—practices of soft power, and the pivot towards political theology through the time of the Maidan and the creation of the OCU by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP). This is made necessary by the at first gradual move of the Ukrainian church to free itself from under the ROC, in light of the post-Soviet movement for independence. ROC’s response to new territorial divisions of parishes, and the freedom to choose affiliation with the Ukrainian- or Russian-led church, comes in the form of public campaigns and legal strategies of canonical penalties. At the same time, expanding out from inter-church politics towards involvement in social and political upheaval placed the Ukrainian church in a threatening position vis-à-vis the ROC. Its popularity grew, while the Russian-led church authority waned. Denysenko identifies the EP’s creation of the OCU as the final straw in these developments, prompting the ROC to draw closer to Russian neo-colonial political projects such as the Russkiy Mir, which it had previously remained neutral towards. Given the project’s central connection to the manipulation of historical memory, the analysis demonstrates in the first place how historical continuity of grievances and political connections found a new expression in post-Soviet Ukraine and its church, as well as the ROC’s response. The EP’s intervention reinforced the perception of threat on the Russian side, creating further impetus for the move away from soft power towards the justification of hard power.
The tipping point towards hard power and escalation towards violence is the subject of the next four chapters, which document the increasingly stringent adoption of the Russkiy Mir narrative by the ROC through soft power, escalating towards the justification of violence and open war. In the third chapter, the ROC’s relationship with Russian nationalism is discussed, focusing on the branding of Russkiy Mir and its increased push after the Maidan. Denysenko crucially notes that Ukrainian reactions to the ROC’s interpretation of the church’s involvement in the Maidan have been mixed. While recognizing the opportunity of having a more independent liturgical practice and community, there has also been criticism. Nevertheless, the ROC, and the Russian-led church in Ukraine created more controversy by labelling the Maidan illegitimate, adopting the language of Russian neo-colonialism, and asserting the presence of malign ‘Western’ influence in Ukraine. The EP’s involvement was cited as an essential reason for the latter.
By introducing the discourse of Western influence into church politics, the ROC thus opened the door towards equating Ukrainian autocephaly with an existential threat to Russians and Ukrainians alike. The fourth chapter shows how this shift in threat perception is reflected in the progressive intensification of the ROC’s soft power tactics, culminating in the emergence of hate speech campaigns. Soft power use by the ROC unfolded in stages, starting with alternating flows of Ukrainization and Russification, before turning towards more tangible canonical penalties and suspension or removal of clergy. These yielded mixed results for the ROC’s popularity, especially with EP involvement throwing ROC’s legitimacy into doubt. Denysenko thus argues that the resistance encountered explains the ROC’s movement towards hate speech campaigns and eventual support for violence.
In the fifth chapter, the emergence and selective use of information campaigns and hate speech are traced through the history of Russo-Ukrainian church relations. Importantly, it demonstrates how times of war consistently pushed ROC tactics towards hate speech and ostracism. This is mirrored by the ROC’s latest statements on the war in Ukraine, where church teaching becomes a vehicle for violence justification, and the call to forgiveness twisted towards retributive justice (p. 108). In the next chapter, Denysenko brings the discussion back towards the Russian state and its weaponization of church politics. Connecting the ROC’s escalation from soft power towards hate speech and violence justifications with the Russkiy Mir narrative and the myth-based historical memory pushed by it, he describes how this justification progresses. Framing the conflict in terms of the triumph of one Orthodoxy, the ROC justifies violence on the grounds of solidarity with the ‘true’ Ukrainian people, the need to defeat the opponent (the Western influence and non-representative Ukrainian government) and thereby bridge the divisions of the Ukrainian church. Denysenko further analyses the responses of the two Ukrainian churches to the conflict, demonstrating how the Russian-led church in Ukraine balances between internal pressure, and that of the Ukrainian people, by operating in a virtual grey space. Its rejection of EP authority is further identified as a crucial element of future vulnerability for Ukraine. The author goes on to propose potential paths to reconciliation in the concluding chapter.
Denysenko’s book thus highlights crucial gaps in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict scholarship, and fills some of the gaps with the history of church relations, demonstrating how the ROC’s move towards justifying hard power was fuelled by Ukrainian calls for church independence. A caveat is in order to better assess the usefulness of this work for broader scholarship on the conflict and church history. This is the issue of soft power. Despite the author’s frequent employment of the term, the term is notable for its absent definition in the text. Its broad use to include tactics ranging from public information campaigns to institutional and legal measures suggests a clearer definition might be necessary. The discussion may also further benefit from an incorporation of the role of individual agency, which appears to figure prominently in the ideological pivot of the ROC, and decisions throughout.
Nevertheless, Denysenko’s book makes vital contributions to the scholarship, not the least for its interdisciplinary scope. It is undoubtedly useful for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the origins and continuation of Russia’s war in Ukraine through the involvement of non-state actors. Its use for broader study of religion and politics is also recommended, especially due to the connections it draws between the ROC’s perceived institutional and Russia’s existential threat. Denysenko thus illuminates new explanations, motives, and interests permeating the world of inter-state conflict and international relations.