The infamy of Russian barbarism. Interview with the head of the Greek Catholic Church of Kyiv

Air-raid sirens wail in the background as His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halych and head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, joins Il Foglio for this conversation. It is the start of the new school term, and Vladimir Putin has decided that the best way to remind the invaded people that the war is ongoing and will continue for as long as he wishes is to send drones to watch from above as schoolchildren run towards their classrooms. A grim memento mori. The war against Ukraine has now lasted longer than the First World War. In the collective imagination, that conflict of a century ago has gone down in history as ‘the senseless slaughter’ – a perfect description coined by the Pope at the time, Benedict XV, as he looked upon the millions of dead in the trenches, slaughtered or gassed to conquer a few patches of land that were inevitably lost the very next day. And yet, it now seems – to quote James Orr, Nigel Farage’s ideologue who has since fallen from grace – that it is merely a regional Slavic conflict. A matter between Russians and Ukrainians, a waste of time for Westerners who want to go to the seaside, shop in peace, and enjoy sea urchins and Angus beef fillets at a restaurant. A nuisance, a bore. As if there were not already enough problems. Usually, it is those who have never heard the alarms, those who have never been reminded of war, who say such things. “This war is a massive haemorrhage of the human fabric in Europe. Unfortunately, to use a medical analogy, haemorrhages that do no harm, that cause no pain, are the most dangerous,” says Sviatoslav Shevchuk. “These internal haemorrhages are fatal. I would like to highlight the scale of this tragedy. Obviously, it is a hybrid war; on the one hand, it is very similar to the trench warfare of the First World War, but the scale of this war is terrifying. For example, in just the first two months of the full-scale war, the United Nations estimated that 12.7 million people were forced to flee their homes. Some have been internally displaced, while others have fled abroad. This figure is comparable to the entire population of Belgium, which has almost twelve million inhabitants. Just under six million are abroad as refugees, according to figures released at the start of the year by the UNHCR. Thankfully, we have been able to take these people in and prevent this humanitarian crisis from deteriorating into a humanitarian tragedy. Another highly sensitive figure that is often overlooked is the length of the front line, estimated at between 1,000 and 1,200 kilometres. To put this into perspective for the Italian reader, this is 55 per cent of the length of Italy’s entire land border. It is a war that is contaminating the ground with explosive ordnance. It is not simply a conflict between groups, but one that is causing environmental contamination; according to official figures, 132,000 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory are contaminated with explosive ordnance. That is 44 per cent of Italy’s entire land area. The other figure, which I find terrifying – particularly for pastoral reasons – is that 114,000 people are officially recognised as missing.” 

We tend to think that the US war in Vietnam resulted in 2,640 missing personnel and is regarded as a tragedy for the American nation. Yet last Sunday, whilst the whole world was commemorating the International Day of the Missing Persons in Armed Conflicts, here in Ukraine we were acutely aware that we already have 114,000 missing persons. That is 114,000 families who do not know the fate of their loved ones. There was talk of the First World War: well, giving exact figures is difficult, but recently some United Nations bodies have stated that there are currently one million seven hundred thousand soldiers in the trenches, including both Russians and Ukrainians. The sheer number of Russians is difficult to comprehend. It is barbaric: in these brutal attacks, Moscow keeps sending soldier after soldier, without even counting the number of their own casualties, which are enormous. In fact, in these attacks, the attacker suffers greater losses than the defender. But this war is not fought solely through combat on the front line. Sophisticated weapons are being used here. Kyiv, Sumy, Zaporizhzhia, Odessa and Kharkiv are being bombed day and night by sophisticated drones equipped with cameras. The operator watches live as civilians are killed. Shops are being attacked – the very places where people go to buy bread – as well as markets, universities and schools. Any place where people gather. For the start of the school year in Ukraine, a hundred underground schools have been built and, they say, another hundred will be built by the end of this year. Russian drones track children on their way to school and attack them. This is terrorism. Some analysts argue that this war is becoming increasingly similar to the one between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. Iraq and Iran were unable to make headway on the battlefield and began to terrorise civilians. It was called the ‘war of the cities’, but it led nowhere, only to the exhaustion of both sides. As Archbishop Gallagher said in Moscow, this war has no military solution. It is truly a haemorrhage of the European human fabric, and I regret that this haemorrhage no longer pains the great democracies of Europe and the world, which are hiding behind the Ukrainians who, with their own bodies, shield the quiet and peaceful life of the European Union.”

The Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halyc speaks of Ukraine standing up for Europeans – those annoyed by the clamour and the din of weapons beyond an imaginary curtain that still seeks to separate the West from the East, as if what is happening over there were a matter reserved solely for those peoples. This annoyance is also fuelled by the rhetoric that portrays Russia as inevitably invincible: so vast, with a mighty and vast army. It can draw soldiers from everywhere, from the steppes of Siberia all the way to Vladivostok. It even has the backing of Kim Jong-un, who is a consummate expert when it comes to reducing soldiers to cannon fodder. Yet we ask the man from Kyiv, why do we in the West still believe all this, after four years of war?

“In my view, Western Europe has so far failed to fully grasp what Ukraine is as a nation, as an independent state. There is a historical perspective: Russia won the great wars – and that is true – and it won them partly because the Ukrainians fought alongside them. Today, without Ukrainian resources – both human and natural – Russia is no longer a world power. Russia lacks the capacity to rebuild the Empire or restore the former Soviet greatness. This is the first time in modern history that Ukraine is not fighting alongside Russia. Many people, both in Russia and in the West, have failed to grasp this. Furthermore, this fact is shattering the myth of the great, invincible Russia. That is no longer the case. Many mental frameworks and ways of thinking remain disoriented. A large proportion of Westerners have always thought of Eastern Europe as a world unto itself, a homogeneous entity. A foreign world. The very word ‘Europe’ was often used only to mean Western Europe. But this is no longer the case. Ukraine is now proving itself to be a subject – rather than an object – of European politics, diplomacy and the economy. Indeed, it is defending Europe itself. Many wonder where this Ukrainian resistance stems from. We do not understand it either; we are amazed by this strength every day. We are rediscovering the strength of our people. We are facing a clash between two different types of society. Ukraine, today, is a society that forms part of a social network of solidarity, information and mutual support; a civil society network which sometimes gives rise to state structures and political life. People who cooperate with one another, who experience a shared way of life. Russia, on the other hand, is a rigid pyramid that has been built without and against civil society. At the apex of this pyramid lies a criminal and kleptocratic government; a regime that sought to rebuild itself by modelling itself on the Soviet system of power. There is no civil society in Russia. Russians are politically apathetic, because they know they cannot change anything. This pyramid is pitted against a network. The Russians cannot win in Ukraine. Of course, each of these types of society has its strengths and weaknesses. In Ukraine, for example, this network needs to be reconnected and mended. Because every trauma, every loss at the front or amongst civilians in the cities, causes the various links in the network to break. Within this network, the Churches are very active, as they keep watch and heal the trauma. Let’s say it is very difficult for us to build strong state structures, but in our country power changes hands, passing from one group to another. In Ukraine, those in power change because there is a foundation of civil society that brings about this change. In Russia – says Sviatoslav Shevchuk – it is the opposite, although this rigid pyramid is beginning to show internal cracks. It is beginning to crumble like a great colossus, and is therefore becoming increasingly dangerous and deadly. It sees itself as a besieged castle and perceives the whole world as the enemy. Obviously, this vertical, pyramid-shaped society is very rigid and opaque. For example, if the Russian president personally takes charge of military micro-management – that is, deciding which village is to be attacked on a particular day – then all other commanders, even military ones, feel sidelined and can no longer make decisions. A network-based society, on the other hand, becomes increasingly dynamic, centred on the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, private initiative, respect for the individual’s agency and their inviolability. Looking at these two opposing sides, perhaps we can understand the Ukrainian resistance – the resistance of a wounded society that is fighting back. Because this conflict is not only causing rifts in the network, but also inflicting wounds upon the soul: for us, this is an existential struggle. If this pyramid were to swallow up the network, we know that the events of the past will be repeated, such as the Holodomor, a genocide in which more than six million Ukrainians died as a result of ‘artificial’ famine. That is why we must defend ourselves. We do so through an international network; we are a transnational people: we have a global community of sixty million Ukrainians spread across the world who support one another and defend their country.” 

Amidst all this, the Holy See is attempting to maintain open channels of communication even with the invader. Ten days ago, Monsignor Paul Richard Gallagher travelled to Moscow, and many in Italy portrayed the trip as a gesture of openness towards Russia. Gallagher himself, however, had been in Ukraine two months ago and had spoken very strongly about the need to defend the Ukrainian cause. He even upheld the territorial integrity of the country invaded by Moscow. What is your view on this?

According to Sviatoslav Shevchuk, “Bishop Gallagher’s mission was a prophetic one, in the sense of the prophecy of a voice crying out in the wilderness. It is interesting that Bishop Gallagher arrived in Russia at precisely the same time as the head of the US secret services was landing there. Monsignor Gallagher truly spoke of dialogue and peace; he said that this war has no military solution, that a diplomatic solution must be found, and so on. But just as he was uttering these prophetic words, at that very moment Russia was planning an escalation of the war in Ukraine. Indeed, it was – and still is today – attempting to take this war beyond Ukraine, even beyond Earth’s atmosphere. In Ukraine, it is said that the reason the head of US intelligence came to Moscow is that Russia is trying to extend the war into outer space, even with plans to trigger a nuclear explosion aimed at striking the GPS satellite system, thereby disrupting global communications. This makes it clear that the message delivered by Archbishop Gallagher stood in stark contrast to the reality he faced in Moscow. We followed this visit very closely. It was like descending into the abyss of Hell and proclaiming from there faith in the resurrection of the dead. Unfortunately, Lavrov and Peskov dismissed Archbishop Gallagher’s words as nothing more than a slogan. This is a very serious matter, as it demonstrates just how much Russia despises diplomacy. The only language it understands is force – brute and military force – and it is incapable of viewing its interlocutor as an equal. I would also like to add that the Russians are only interested in dialogue when their interlocutors can be exploited for Moscow’s propaganda agenda. Anyone who refuses to be exploited will be rejected. Archbishop Gallagher’s trip was extremely delicate: the risk of exploitation was very high, and the Holy See cannot allow itself to be exploited in this way. The Pope and the representative for Relations with States spoke clearly and unequivocally about peace. Speaking of peace in today’s Russia is, incidentally, considered a crime. I would therefore say – and I repeat myself – that it was a prophetic visit, but one which, unfortunately, has not opened up any breakthrough; there has been no opening to date. Obviously, both the pro-Russian media and their allies in the West, like good ‘useful idiots’, will exploit it for their own ends. But we in Ukraine know that Pope Leo is a Pope of peace, who proclaims it even if he has to go against a very specific political current. Leo XIV proclaims values, defends the dignity of the human person; and, with regard to Ukraine, he speaks of war in Europe and of respect for our Constitution. In other words, he is proclaiming principles without which it will be impossible to put an end to this war.”

And after years of apparent tension – or perhaps misunderstanding – how is the Holy See’s role in relation to the ongoing conflict perceived in Ukraine today?

“I can see that the language used by Pope Leo and Vatican diplomacy is currently very clear. At times in the past, it was precisely a certain interpretation of symbols and words that caused misunderstandings. Not so much regarding intentions. Today, it is very clear that what the Holy See says and does is greatly appreciated in Ukraine. Ever since the day of his election, Leo XIV has been hailed in Ukraine as the Pope of peace, who does not merely speak in pacifist slogans – for authentic, Christian peace has nothing to do with pacifism, especially of the communist variety – but is proclaiming the principles upon which this peace can be built. A just and lasting peace, a peace that is unarmed and disarming. We are therefore very grateful for this clarity; we have felt supported in this regard by the Holy See. And we are particularly grateful because, in June, during the Consistory, the ideology of the ‘just war’ was rejected. That is to say, the very thing that is currently being proclaimed in Moscow: Patriarch Kirill has just published a book on the ‘just war’, which for him is a holy war. Well, it seems to me that the Holy See takes a completely different view.”

There is also an underlying problem, which once again has to do with a distracted and prejudiced West, as well as one that holds entirely erroneous historical and religious views. Indeed, there are always those who view Russia as a bulwark defending so-called ‘true values’, including Christian values. And this despite the fact that Vladimir Putin has no qualms about bombing even the Dormition Monastery in Kyiv. So much for respect for Christian symbols…

The head and father of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church smiles silently and waits a few seconds before replying. “A few days ago,” he says, “a very thought-provoking and important article on this subject appeared, written by Sergei Chapnin. He is an Orthodox believer who was part of the Moscow Patriarchate for fifteen years before having to leave for certain reasons. His article is entitled ‘Faith Under Pressure’.” Chapnin debunks the myth of Russia as a bastion defending traditional values. I would like to clarify one point: we are not talking about Christian values. Russian propaganda relies on so-called traditional values. And the tradition in question is certainly not Christian. They exploit family values for military ends; they preach a theology of death rather than of resurrection. There is no longer any talk of Christian values or God’s commandments. It is a civic religion whose values are those of the Russian state. Speaking of traditional values is therefore an ideological trap, set by the ideology of the Russian world. A small example to illustrate this: an Orthodox priest who refuses to pray for war but prays for peace is not simply a dissident, but is considered a heretic. His crime? Failing to support this new theology, which blends Christian remnants with the communist and Marxist ideology of the Soviet Union. This is the context of the myth of Russia as the defender of traditional values. It has nothing to do with Christian tradition or with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Yesterday, at the end of the Angelus, the Pope’s thoughts turned once again to Ukraine: “It is with a heavy heart that I have followed the news of the violent attacks that have recently struck various cities and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, causing the deaths of innocent people. My heart goes out to the suffering of the people, who have been living in anguish and fear for years. I make a renewed appeal to put an end to the violence, to halt the destruction, and to open hearts to dialogue and peace. I hope that the efforts undertaken in recent days to resume negotiations will bear concrete fruit and pave the way for diplomacy.”