When representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church recently crossed the threshold of the White House, it was not an ordinary visit by religious figures. Behind their arguments about “religious freedom” and “religious persecution in Ukraine” lies a coordinated political operation aimed at influencing the U.S. stance toward Kyiv and making the church issue in Ukraine part of the negotiation within the framework of a peace settlement.
The matter was highlighted by The Hill, which revealed that clergy and lobbyists are systematically meeting with government officials and members of Congress on behalf of Moscow. Their narrative is that Ukraine oppresses Orthodox believers and that American aid should be reconsidered.
Behind this ideology stands the experienced Canadian-American lobbyist Robert Amsterdam, who has taken on the task of “selling” to Congress the image of Ukraine as an “anti-Christian state” that violates religious freedoms, persecuting believers who remain affiliated with the pro-Russian Ukrainian Church (the Ukrainian Orthodox Church connected to Moscow, whereas since 2018 the Patriarchate of Constantinople has recognized the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine).
As revealed by The Washington Post, Amsterdam is funded by Vadim Novinsky, a Russian-Ukrainian oligarch and deacon of the Russian Church. Novinsky finances a lobbying network that includes former legislators, law firms, and political advisors. Over the past two years, his campaign has managed to find receptive ears in conservative MAGA circles. For example, as a senator, J.D. Vance publicly linked military aid to Ukraine with the “protection of religious freedom,” while the well-known influencer Tucker Carlson gave Amsterdam a platform, transmitting his narrative to millions of voters.
In Congress, this activity has sparked reactions. Republican Representative Joe Wilson, in a letter to the Department of Justice, called for an investigation into foreign influence through church organizations, expressing concern that the Kremlin is using religion as a political weapon.
However, the issue is not only about Ukraine. It touches the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has broader geopolitical implications, as noted by former FDD analyst Aydin Erdemir.
The Attacks
Since 2018, when Patriarch Bartholomew recognized the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, Moscow has launched a campaign to delegitimize him: attacks, conspiracy theories, and questioning his canonical authority aim to undermine his image in conservative American circles.
The stakes are strategic. If the Patriarchate is weakened internationally, the Russian Church strengthens its claim to primacy in the Orthodox world. Within this context falls the recent unrest in the Greek Orthodox community in the U.S. The sudden statement by the leaders of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, condemning the meeting of Russian church officials at the White House and issued without consultation with the Archdiocese of America, was a political own goal. The statement threatened to disrupt the cohesion of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in the U.S., chaired by Archbishop Elpidophoros as the Patriarchate’s representative. The assembly also includes pro-Russian actors who would have no objection to leaving.
“Orthobros”—Why Are Young Americans Turning to Orthodoxy?
A potential split in the body would have strategically benefited Moscow, indirectly limiting the Patriarchate’s influence in America. The Archbishop was forced into a deadlock, compelling him to publicly distance himself from the leaders’ statement to keep the Assembly alive. In Washington, more and more voices are now recognizing the geopolitical dimension of Orthodoxy. In the past, during the Biden administration, the then-progressive government appeared unwilling to intervene in ecclesiastical matters, avoiding imposing sanctions on the Moscow Patriarchate or Patriarch Kirill, who supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Similarly, Washington had chosen to remain passive regarding the Russian Church’s intrusion in Africa, in violation of the Patriarchate of Alexandria’s jurisdiction. Today, from the Capitol to the Patriarchate, it is becoming clear that this conflict is not theological. It is geopolitical. And it is evolving quietly—but with consequences far exceeding the limits of ecclesiastical diplomacy.
