Officially, the Kremlin’s website states that the Security Council was devoted to “the internal Russian socio-economic agenda and international issues.”

However, in addition to this, it was particularly emphasized that the participants of the Security Council exchanged views on the issues of “the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine after the decision on autocephaly by Constantinople”.

It is clear that the liberal public is already shouting that “we have a secular state” and that this state should not interfere in church affairs. But, the fact is that, firstly, the Security Council participants “exchanged views.” The theme of religion for the exchange of views even at the Security Council in our state is not taboo. They wanted to – and talked.

The second important point is that the same public didn’t see “nothing” when it was the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who began demanding this autocephaly for the Ukrainian church and for political reasons, comparing the creation of a “single and independent Ukrainian church” with Ukraine’s NATO.

And here there is a very subtle point: if some religious processes are used in a purely political manner, then the state, be it three times secular, perceives these processes as political and assesses from their respective positions.

As some experts note, the “exchange of opinions” on the issue of autocephaly, as if hints that the Russian state began to perceive this issue from the standpoint of national security, and external threats to this very security.

In the channel of the Master of the Pen, for example, they write that during the Security Council, “the meeting’s participants agreed that Washington, behind whose votes the Constantinople patriarch Bartholomew sings, is behind it. Foreign Minister Lavrov expressed this point of view. , who declared a provocation by Bartholomew with the support of the United States, mentioning the special representative for Ukraine Volcker in a sharply negative context. “

And further, the author adds: “By itself, the presidential intervention in the Orthodox drama is probably forced.”

True, the author further blames Patriarch Cyril of certain “mistakes and omissions”, but here it is absolutely incomprehensible where the primate of the Russian Church was wrong, who until the last time had held talks with Varfolomey, met him personally, was in Ukraine after the Maidan events and continues Now do everything to preserve the unity of the Russian Church.

And from a practical point of view, a situation may now arise of a massive seizure of temples and monasteries by schismatics, from whom Bartholomew himself removed the anathemas imposed by the Russian Church. Moreover, such an activity as the forceful seizure of temples by the same “Filaretists” has been constantly practiced since the beginning of the nineties.

By the way, from a theological point of view, the incident itself of “granting autocephaly” has also already received a theological assessment , and not only among Russian Orthodox theologians.

Thus, the Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Irenaeus, in his lengthy speech noted: “Ukraine has the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which as an autonomous Local Church is subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate, is recognized by all and without exception in Eucharistic communion.

This church does not want and did not ask anyone for autocephaly, not even the Moscow Patriarchate, to which it refers and which in such a case would be called upon to begin the whole procedure, coming out with an appropriate proposal, neither from the Constantinople Patriarchate, which then, in the framework of coordinating the issue, it is called to bring this issue to a pan-Orthodox discussion and a final decision …

In parallel with this canonical Ukrainian Church, there are three schismatic associations in the country, and in addition to them, an aggressive Uniate community. And these negotiations on autocephaly are being conducted with these schismatic “Churches” and at the same time with the state authorities of Ukraine in the absence of the canonical Church and contrary to her will. It goes without saying that the Uniates intervene on the side of the schismators in the most brazen manner.

Consequently, this is not about the project of granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, as we constantly hear and read about it, but about the program of granting autocephaly to Ukrainian schismatic (schismatic) entities. “

By the way, according to TASS, citing sources in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, “the Vatican does not categorically interfere in the affairs of Orthodoxy, but it is already clear that the Holy Throne will not come into contact with the church recognized by Bartholomew (Patriarch of Constantinople)” .

What are these “schismatic associations” from a political point of view? This, for the most part, is Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Therefore, the issue of national security in the context of church events in Ukraine is even more justified. Neo-Nazism, and not neo-but simply Nazism, is a threat to which Russia has already been subjected, and everyone knows what the consequences of this threat were in 1941-1945.

The question is quite logical, what will happen next? After this Security Council? Most likely, the expectation of reciprocal steps of the Constantinople Patriarchate, the Ukrainian authorities, will follow, if there remains at least someone at least minimally adequate, and, apparently, Washington.

If these “respected parties” surrender and, at least, “freeze the process,” then Moscow, in turn, will retreat from considering the issue and taking concrete measures. But if not, then our diplomacy will be involved.

Because, for example, we now have very good relations with the Turkish leadership. And the Ecumenical Patriarchate is, it is worth recalling, in one of the quarters of Istanbul.

And besides, the Turkish Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate – it sounds beautiful. Moreover, Turkish Orthodoxy also wanted Kemal Atatürk.