When Will Russia’s War On Ukraine End? Religion And Security Strategies
Russian President Vladimir Putin with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow at the New Jerusalem Monastery nearby Moscow in 2017. Creative Commons photo by the Kremlin
Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.
(OPINION) Russia’s security strategy gives prominent weight to concerns about traditional religious values. Diplomatic negotiations between Russia and the West to end the war in Ukraine will likely center on some of these concerns for many years to come.
The “Russian Federation’s National Security Strategy” approved by Presidential Edict 683 on Dec. 31, 2015, included a section on “state and public security.” In what may seem a surprise, Article 43, which deals with “threats to state and public security,” ranked “traditional Russian religious and moral values” in third place, immediately after “intelligence and other activity by special services” and “terrorist and extremist organizations.” The protection of religious values was more important than “the activities of criminal organizations and groups,” “criminal offenses” and “corruption.”
On July 2, 2021, Russia replaced the 2015 document with the revised National Security Strategy approved by Presidential Edict 400. The latest version is one of the most detailed texts on the interplay between religion and national security. Article 28 states that “the Russian spiritual and moral ideals and cultural and historical values … are the foundation for the further development of the country.” A lengthy section in Articles 84-93, titled “The protection of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, culture and historical memory,” gives a holistic approach to religion and security by stating that all of “humanity is faced with the threat of losing traditional spiritual and moral guidelines” and that “traditional Russian spiritual, moral, cultural and historical values are under active attack from the United States and its allies.”
The significance of religion in advancing security strategies was also highlighted by Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and former director of the Federal Security Service. In an April 26, 2022, Rossiyskaya Gazeta interview, Patrushev said:
Our spiritual and moral values allow us to remain ourselves, to be honest with our ancestors, to preserve the individual, society and the state. The Europeans, for example, made a different choice (by adopting liberal values). Washington and Brussels make no secret of the fact that their sanctions are aimed at both material and spiritual impoverishment of Russians.
Russia’s protection of “spiritual values” in its 2021 National Security Strategy suggests five scenarios to end the war in Ukraine: a return to the 19th century geopolitical empire, the Eurasian civilization, the emergence of Christian traditionalism, the Syrianization of Ukraine and the building of a larger European community.
First, the 19th century geopolitical empire
In the 19th century, Russia supported the national aspiration of Christian Orthodox populations in southeastern Europe under the Ottoman Empire. Under the flag of defending the Orthodox faithful, Russian troops regularly advanced through the region in what was perceived as a key geopolitical link to Western Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. In support of this vision, on Feb. 22, 2022, in his speech just before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin denounced Ukraine as an independent state and reemphasized the religious unity of the two countries. In his view, “Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space.”
The controlling of a land corridor in southern Ukraine, the shelling of Odessa and the aiming to join the Russian troops in Transnistria are reminders of the country’s quest for a “spiritual space” and geopolitical ambitions. Following this thinking, the war will stop when Russia reaches the Danube Delta on the border with Romania, which would thereby enable its advancement of religious and geopolitical power in southeastern Europe.
Second, the Eurasian civilization
An extreme version of Russia’s defense of spiritual values was put forward by Aleksander Dugin, an influential philosopher in the Kremlin’s circles. His 1997 book “The Foundation of Geopolitics,” in which he proposed the idea of a Russian-led Eurasian Empire from Dublin to Vladisvostok, is one of the key readings in Russia’s military universities. In Dugin’s view, “Ukraine, as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions, represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia.” After the launch of Russia’s invasion, Dugin claimed that “Russia is destined to win — we have no alternative. This is an existential threat to us, so victory is our only choice.”
That the idea of a Eurasian civilization retains influence in Putin’s inner circle is also evident in former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a step toward achieving an “open Eurasia, from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” Nuclear threats and the use of apocalyptic messages in defending the Eurasian civilization adds to conflict intensity and the unpredictability of political decision-making. The conflict would thus remain protracted for years to come and would be transformed into what can be seen as a permanent war with religious connotations between East and West.
Third, the emergence of Christian traditionalism
In the last two decades, Eastern Orthodox Christianity has been divided between liberal and conservative communities. The establishment of a national church outside Moscow’s jurisdiction has exacerbated the lines of division between Orthodox churches around the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Religious diplomacy has supported Russian exceptionalism in the Eastern Orthodox world with visits by Russian high-ranking clergy advancing the concept of the “Russkiy Mir” (Russian world) taking place regularly to the Western world and more widely to Latin America and Asia. In December 2021, Moscow even set up a Patriarchal Exarchate in Africa.
In his March 6, 2022 sermon, Patriarch Kirill justified Russia’s war on Ukraine as follows: “If humanity recognizes that sin is not a violation of God’s law, if humanity agrees that sin is one of the options for human behavior, then human civilization will end there.” The war in Ukraine would end with the emergence of a new world branch of Christianity, Christian traditionalism, with churches following Moscow’s narrative becoming gradually detached from the fellowship of Eastern Orthodox churches.
Fourth, the Syrianization of Ukraine
The Moscow Patriarchate has supported Russia’s military participation in the Syrian conflict. The consecration of the Saint George Chapel at the Khmeimim Syrian airbase in 2016, financial support towards rebuilding destroyed churches, the involvement of clergy in the exchange of prisoners of war and the soft power of holding high-level meetings with Catholic prelates involved in raising awareness of Christian persecution in the Middle East find similarities with the interplay between religion and security in Ukraine. The virtual meeting between Patriarch Kirill of Russia and Patriarch Porfirije of Serbia on April 27, 2022, in which they both lamented the fate of refugees in Ukraine — with the latter expressing support for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate — and the Russian church’s humanitarian work in the Donbass region are examples of the war in Ukraine becoming comparable to that in Syria. From this perspective, the war in Ukraine will become protracted, for years to come, and will end after a solution to the war in Syria may be reached.
Fifth, a larger European community
The European Union is largely a political and economic project with no pan-European policy on religion, which remains the realm of national church-state relations. However, despite the absence of religion in the European integration process, religious and political leaders have regularly shared their visions of the future of Europe. What advice would the founding fathers of the European Union — Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer and Alcide De Gaspari — have toward Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? The French President Emmanuel Macron seems to provide an answer by proposing the establishment of a “new European political community” around its core values, such as energy and security. What is missing from Macron’s proposal and was present in the founding fathers’ vision was the idea of Europe as a “community of nations” rather than a “union of nation-states.”
“An end to the war would mean not only a political and military compromise but also taking religion seriously, for the leadership and societies at large in both Russia and the European Union. ”
Russia is an integral part of Europe. An end to the war would mean not only a political and military compromise but also taking religion seriously, for the leadership and societies at large in both Russia and the European Union. For example, a new treaty replacing the 2009 Lisbon Treaty may emphasize the concept of community as present in its earlier embodiments, “the European Economic Community” and “the European Steel and Coal Community.” The word “community” has not only a meaning for political and economic organizations but also a religious one denoting a future for Europe that brings East and West together. Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Russia can all find the means of identification with the concept of a larger European community.
Other strategies that can be incorporated into the five listed above or could develop their own narratives include the following: setting up a religious tribunal by international religious organizations to condemn the politicization of religion, holding mediation by religious leaders in sacred Christian Orthodox sites, drawing together military expertise with the humanitarian work of religious communities, retaining the status quo in both military and religious terms, and providing humanitarian support to populations in need, which can shift the military and political balance.
How will the war end?
No matter which scenario has a higher chance, a diplomatic solution without taking into account the role of religion in advancing social progress while also exacerbating the conflict in Russia, Ukraine and the European Union is bound to fail.
Russia’s war on Ukraine will end with a reassessment of religion and world geopolitics. A solution to ending the war requires a rethinking of the future of Eastern and Western Europe in which understanding the interplay between religion and security is more important than ever.
Lucian N. Leustean is a Reader in Politics and International Relations at Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. This op-ed was supported by the author’s participation as Senior Fellow in the ‘Orthodoxy and Human Rights’ project, sponsored by Fordham University’s Orthodox Christian Studies Center, and generously funded by the Henry Luce Foundation and Leadership 100.