Orthodox Activism and Western Journalism

https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-orthodox-christians-lose-faith-in-vladimir-putin/

I have no desire to defend the tenets of Classical Liberalism but this Politico article in assuming them, spawns an unnecessary confusion. The Russian Orthodox Church does not embrace the epistemological or social model of Western Liberalism and Putin has apparently all but abandoned it as well. This is why in the contemporary context they are viewed as heretics by the adherents of Atlanticism, the Western Establishment and many Western Christians as well.

So what can be said of the Orthodox devotee-activists who have taken to the streets and the fact that their activism has generated tension with the hierarchy? For Politico it's a moral challenge to the Patriarch, but of course from a traditionally conservative and certainly sacralist viewpoint it is the activists who have imbibed modernist poison. Their devotion is suspect. They present no viable ideological or moral challenge to Orthodoxy and the stand of the Patriarch but instead represent a deviation to be condemned.

The faith of the activists (whether right or wrong) is not in the framework of Orthodoxy but Orthodoxy viewed through the lens of the Western Liberalism. Maybe it's legitimate but honesty demands that it would hardly be a stretch or anomaly for the traditionalist authorities to view such expressions as heretical deviations and on that basis they would question the 'faith' of the activists. Politico, representing the Western Establishment would automatically view such thinking as out of bounds if not abhorrent.

And then of course there are those Orthodox members that are doing something of a two-step, trying to straddle both worlds at the same time, retaining traditionalist orthodox beliefs even while appealing to 'human rights' a concept that finds little traction in the Byzantine worldview.

Obviously Western media outlets want to make a great deal of hay out of this story. There is indeed a story to be told, a clash of traditionalism and modernity but one wishes the story would be contextualised and told in an honest way. Apart from the assumptions which guide the journalists, I think there is also the assumption that their audience will of course take the pro-dissident, pro-liberal side. But that's hardly fair and honest, nor is it entirely accurate. It certainly fails the objectivity test. Rejections of Liberalism are on the rise and then of course there are others like myself who reject Liberalism (all or in part) but also reject the sacralism of the hierarchy and the state and its tendency to use authoritarian methods. I want to follow the story but I would appreciate an honest telling. This is why there is really no one news source that can be relied upon. One is driven to rely on multiple sources and then to filter the results.

I had to chuckle when reading the one activist's reference to Augustine of Hippo, a figure all but reviled in the Orthodox world. He's not going to gain any traction by quoting the North African father. The activist decries a state devoid of justice and equates it with a band of robbers.

He needs to revisit his own history and the legacy of Byzantium, but its dubious legacy would apply no less to Western states. The form and packaging are admittedly different, but power is power and it always corrupts. Some polities are better than others but injustice and criminality are as old the Cainite city and the Babel state. The Orthodox Church has traditionally been less concerned about justice and far more interested in security, protection and a ruler that rules to the glory of God. Whether such rule is viewed as 'just' in the eye of the peasant was of very little concern.

But this is the 21^st century someone will protest. Indeed it is but Russia's history is very different from say France, Germany or the United States. I find it somewhat amazing that these activists are echoing the emergent democratic sentiment of the 1990's, a sentiment that historians dismissed and history has proven to be right. Russia was not going to transition to democracy. Those that thought so in the 1990's didn't understand that (for good or ill) the necessary foundations just weren't there. But in 2020, we can say this is a new generation and they haven't learned that the state they're seeking would take multiple generations to form and must be built on social transformation. Russia even in the 21^st century is nowhere close to this. Is this something to lamented? Maybe, maybe not but to ignore the realities of history is to march in protest against the sea or a mountain. You are wasting your time. They're trying to build an edifice on ground that has not been prepared, on ground that has no foundations.

As far as Crimea, once again a review of history reveals support for Moscow's narrative. Even a read of Anna Reid's 1997 'Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine' reveals that all the struggles of today were on the table in the 1990's. The Donbass, Crimea, all the tensions were there and everyone was talking about fragmentation, annexation and civil war. This was before Putin came to power, before the rightward turn that has taken place under his tenure. This history and its related issues do not easily go away and they're not new. Contrary to the assertions of Western pundits and activists, this narrative did not begin in 2014.  

The Politico activists cite Crimea as the watershed moment, the moment they realised their society was headed in the wrong direction. Clearly they've been asleep and have failed to understand some of the deep existential questions that hover over Kiev and Moscow – whatever governments happen to reside in the respected capitals.

While I certainly would call Putin's Christianity into question, I am left speechless at the words of the former hard-line Orthodox believer who seems astonished that a 'Christian' ruler would order attacks on political opponents. Again, he would do well to sit down and read some history. Apparently he's fallen for the very mistaken notion that the 21^st century is of a different order, unrelated to the past. Liberalism continues to place a veneer over the political orders of our day, but Machiavelli is beneath the surface or at the very least waiting in the wings.

Finally the Politico article is revealed for what it really is... propaganda. They didn't even bother to interview someone from the other side, someone who could make an Orthodox theological case against the activists. A couple of one line quotes hardly contextualises the struggle, the issues, let alone the overall context of Russia, its quest for identity and security post-1991, and the way in which Orthodoxy and nationalism are being used as a counter to perceptions of both Western infiltration and aggression.

There is a story to be told but you're only going to get a small piece of it when relying on Western media. And a partial view more often than not is misleading.