Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

US now encouraging the division of Ukraine along religious lines

This policy will hardly help Ukraine become more prosperous or secure.

Published

on

1,219 Views

US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback has visited Ukraine. On Sept. 11 he was received by President Poroshenko. The ambassador seized the opportunity to offer assurances that Washington would continue to support the idea of an independent Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), despite the fact that that institution is currently under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

The UAOC has asked for a separation and to be granted autocephalous status, thus recognizing its ecclesiastical independence. Last April Ukrainian lawmakers reaffirmed Kiev’s traditional links to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

On September 2, the Council of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople confirmed that the Constantinople Patriarchate, the first among equals in Orthodox Christianity, may grant autocephaly without obtaining prior approval. That council began the procedure to enable the Church of Ukraine to be recognized as autocephalous without delay.

Shortly after the confirmation, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew appointed two representatives as exarchs, or envoys, to prepare for the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. His position is clear and he did not hesitate to take this action that brings a declaration of ecclesiastical independence for the Church in Ukraine one step closer. Bishop Illarion and Bishop Daniel who were chosen for the mission are known for their anti-Russian views.

This is a flagrant violation of the canonical domain of the Moscow Patriarchy. The Greek Patriarchate did not even inform Moscow of the decision. A third of the Russian Orthodox Church’s 35,000 parishes are in Ukraine. Obviously this move will create an enormous schism in Orthodox Christianity, comparable to the rupture between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in 1054 (the East-West schism). Some Orthodox Churches will recognize the independence of Ukraine’s Church, while others will reject it.

Actually, there will now be three Orthodox Churches in Ukraine: the Kiev Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, and the Moscow Patriarchate, in addition to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has many followers in the western part of the country. All of Ukraine will be divided along religious lines just to make it easier for the US to accomplish its goal of subjugating that nation through a “divide and rule’ policy.

The schism will not be limited just to Russia and Ukraine. If the decision to separate the Churches is implemented, the Russian Church may have no choice but to sever relations with Constantinople. The entire Greek Orthodox world would be divided.

The intentions of the Holy Synod of Constantinople are understandable. The Russian Orthodox Church is the biggest in the world. The Holy Synod has seized this opportunity to weaken its rival and to assert itself as the leader of the Orthodox world. Ambassador Brownback’s visit confirms the fact that the US wants this schism to take place. This is one way to weaken the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church among the Slavic nations and to create an alternative to it in Kiev, thus sidelining the Russian Church in the Orthodox world. Washington wants to see a rollback of Moscow on all fronts.

This is happening at a time when US policy is shifting in favor of expanding military assistance to Ukraine. US Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker confirmed this US commitment before his visit to Ukraine on Sept. 13. He arrived right after Mr. Brownback. Kiev is playing host to one US envoy after another. The very frequency of these visits is curious. Evidently something’s cooking.

All this is added to the US support of Ukraine at a time of heightened tensions, as the situation in the Azov Sea, a real tinderbox, keeps on deteriorating. Ukraine has just boosted its military presence there. Ukrainian Ground Forces Commander Colonel General Serhiy Popko brought this up on Sept. 11. Ukraine has a foreign military presence on its soil, as well as an official NATO status. The US is using Ukraine for its own economic and political ends. Ukrainian President Poroshenko has just tabled a bill to amend the constitution paving the way for NATO and EU membership. He wants it sealed and the parliament is to consider the amendments next week.

Washington is looking for ways to slow Russia’s growing strength, independence, and influence. A large country that is openly hostile to Moscow while sharing a long border with Russia fits that bill nicely. This policy will hardly help Ukraine become more prosperous or secure. Seizing each and every opportunity to emphasize its independence, Kiev is happily playing the role of a marionette being controlled by Washington.

Via Strategic Culture

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
19 Comments

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
It is I onlyWalter DublanicaMarinaTheCelotajsigor Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

US this…US that…US continuously sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong. Hasn’t the US done enough damage already all over the world? Mind your own…

Normski
Member
Normski

I totally agree – if USA and Israel were wiped off the make, I doubt anyone would care or even notice!.

Gavril
Guest
Gavril

Fortunately, from what I can tell from the Book of Revelations, the US won’t be around when the rest of the world teaches Israhell a damned good lesson.

igor
Guest
igor

same for england

igor
Guest
igor

Anxiously waiting for the end of the US Hope it sinks into the ocean.

A.F.
Guest
A.F.

Ukraine get their own Church at last. Slava Ukraina! The Russian FSB-church will be outlawed.

James Reed
Guest

You probably never went to a church in your life. And judging from your hate speech, you sure could use a church.

Gavril
Guest
Gavril

Probably doesn’t believe in God, for that matter. Moron. We, in the Orthodox Church of America are in full fellowship with the Moscow Patriarchate. Given the choice between being with the Holy Russian Orthodox Church and the Jew-Run Ukrainian version, I know which side I want to be on.

Walter Dublanica
Member

I am with you 100%.

igor
Guest
igor

Pig doesn’t even live in ukraine

TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

I see A.F. is trolling again with his BS!

Marina
Guest
Marina

Yes, Ukrainian Nazi are very happy. But very soon you will cry.

It is I only
Guest
It is I only

JPH
Guest
JPH

Divide & Rule..

Tom
Guest
Tom

Yea.. after the massive combat and territory losses that are going to happen to the Ukrainian Army.

Gavril
Guest
Gavril

Many young men in the West of Ukraine were conscripted at gunpoint by night to be forced to go and murder their fellow Ukrainians in Dombass. The lucky ones escaped.

That said, it is mostly the criminal element that is being used by the Jews to line their pockets at the expense of the common Ukrainian.

Slava Ukraina indeed. More like Slaves. Jesus wept, and so do I. Brownback is an idiot, and Poroschenko as corrupt as any other Hebe who rules in Kiev.

igor
Guest
igor

his name sounds very jewish

Marina
Guest
Marina

We have an information war. We are all her victims. The US economic war against Russia, China, European countries and even Canada is in full swing. A chemical war breaks out here and there. Forbidden phosphorous bombs fall on the cities of Donbass and Syria. While Russia destroyed all its chemical weapons, according to the treaty on the prohibition of such weapons, the United States stated that they do not have the money to dispose of chemical munitions. The story of the Skripals has become an example of how cleverly Western countries have learned to blame others for their own… Read more »

Walter Dublanica
Member

Who said that this farm boy from Kansas is to dictate to the Orthodox church ? American are getting cockier by the year.

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending