By Nick Stamatakis
The latest intelligence-level attack by Russia on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not an isolated outburst. It is the visible crest of a deeper civilizational and theological struggle—one rooted in history, empire, and competing visions of Orthodox authority.
According to the Russian intelligence communiqué—reported by TASS and carried by Greek commentary sites—the SVR claims:
- Bartholomew is colluding with British special services to fuel Russophobic sentiment and weaken Russian spiritual influence in Eastern Europe.
- He is attempting to detach Orthodox communities in the Baltic states—Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia—from Moscow’s jurisdiction and draw them into “puppet structures” aligned with Constantinople.
- The SVR further asserts that Bartholomew may seek to grant autocephaly to the controversial “Orthodox Church of Montenegro,” undermining the canonical authority of the Serbian Orthodox Church as part of a deliberate strategy to fracture canonical unity.
The “Third Rome” Doctrine
According to Orthodox historical thought, Rome fell to heresy, Constantinople—the “Second Rome”—fell to the Turks in 1453, and Moscow emerged as the “Third Rome,” the final guardian of true Orthodoxy.
From this perspective, Constantinople held primacy because it was the seat of the Empire. When imperial authority vanished, spiritual leadership was expected to follow historical gravity. Moscow, preserving Orthodoxy through centuries of hardship, came to see itself not merely as a national church, but as the last civilizational bastion of Orthodox Christianity.
This worldview remains deeply embedded within the Russian Church and state. Moscow’s traditionalist stance on family and gender—contrasted with recent steps by Constantinople and Rome to accept homosexuality and other heresies—reinforces this perception. A great number of Christians worldwide now view Moscow as the Ark of Christianity.
Persecution and Revival
For over 70 years under militant atheistic communism, the Russian Orthodox Church was persecuted, its clergy imprisoned or executed, and its churches destroyed. Only after the Soviet collapse did the Church re-emerge publicly.
Over the last three decades, Russia has witnessed an unprecedented religious revival, with tens of thousands of churches rebuilt or newly constructed and the Orthodox faith reintegrated into public life. From this standpoint, Moscow sees external interference as both unjust and historically ignorant.
Ukraine and the Schism
At the heart of the rupture lies Ukraine. In 2019, Bartholomew granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), immediately triggering a schism with Moscow. He ignored advise from senior Greek diplomats about the very distinct possibility of violence. Bartholomew went as far as “chastising” all sides in Ukraine to avoid violence in his first proclamation of “Cacocephaly”!! But the money was tow much – allegedly over $20 million!!
Approximately 70% of Ukrainian Orthodox believers remained with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), a Church spiritually linked to Moscow but enjoying wide autonomy. The UOC already functioned de facto as a Ukrainian Church, making autocephaly unnecessary and divisive.
Commentators have alleged Western diplomatic pressure, including bribes attributed to the U.S. State Department, influenced Constantinople’s decision. These allegations are denied by the Phanar but persist in Orthodox and geopolitical analysis. At some comical circumstance in 2018, a few months after granting “Cacocephaly” to Ukraine, Bartholomew admitted receiving candy from Poroshenko, the then Ukrainian President (also known as “the king of chocolate” – please link here to refresh your memory – Helleniscope has been reporting on this disgusting episode since then). Bartholomew has lost all credibility and is widely seen as a contrarian with limited theological knowledge and even less faith.
Here is a photo of Bartholomew from the infamous 2018 event throwing candy to the children – candy coming from Poroshenko!! The apex of arrogance!! He thinks he can fool all of us – and God!!
From Moscow’s viewpoint, the result was not unity but fracture, conflict, and state-backed pressure on UOC parishes.
Final Assessment
What is unfolding is not merely a dispute between two patriarchs. It is a confrontation between Constantinople’s claim to universal primacy without an empire and Moscow’s belief that spiritual authority follows historical sacrifice, continuity, and numbers.
Whether one accepts or rejects Moscow’s accusations, the schism reveals a familiar truth: Orthodoxy once again stands at the intersection of theology, history, power, and geopolitics. This time, however, it is not simply about “Empire”. It’s about rejecting the anti-Christian globalist heresies, which in essence are a knife in the heart of Christianity.
January 13, 2026, n.stamatakis@aol.com www.helleniscope.com
DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.
The Third Rome and the City on a Hill need to be friends.
I have been a believer in the third Rome for many years. Since the collapse of communism and the revival of Ortbodoxy in Russia. The Russians have never questioned the place of the Ecumenical Patriarch as first among equals and holding a primacy of honor.
Patriarch Bartholomew could have done much simply by being first among equals. But the desire to be a Pope of the East is what has harmed his Patriarchate. Watching the Patriarchate undermine itself really is painful to watch.
One thing that never gets brought up. The US government did nothing after the anti Greek pogroms in Constantinople and the ethnic cleansing campaign of the Greeks in 1964. It is obscene that Patriarch Bartholomew is colluding with the State Deoartment against the largest Orthodox country in the world.
After the 1955 pogroms, the Russian Church condemned the Turkish government and expressed support for the Patriarchate. The Russians supported the resumption of the divine services at Panagia Soumela in 2010.
Ever since Patriarch Bartholomew started a war against the Russian Church we have lost Hagia Sophia and the Church of the Savior at Chora. Russia is the defender of Christian values.
The Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem see this. They will survive.
For over 50 years the State Dept is unable to open a plain theological school in Halki and we expect them to condemn the Turks for the mini genocide in Constantinople in 1954-55? Or anything else? They don’t care about Orthodoxy – they want to destroy it and they have proved it
Also, neither the USA, nor Constantinople cared about Ukraine back in the 1930’s. Stalin starved six to eight million Ukrainians to death at a time when Hitler was just coming to power. I was pondering why a Christian Russia is more of a threat to this world than the Soviet Union was. Then it hit me, Marxism isn’t a threat to the prince of this world. The church is.
The Epistle to Diognetus is an excellent treatise on why Christianity poses no threat to earthly governments:
https://www.christian-history.org/letter-to-diognetus.html
However, that treatise was written when Christians had no power in government, and we all know that power often corrupts even Christians. The “Christian” Roman Empire was often at odds with the Church such as during the periods of iconoclast persecution. Yet even through such tribulations, God preserved the Church, and preserved it even after the secular government of the Roman Empire fell.
God has also preserved Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine despite the Soviet atheist persecutions. Yet today Ukraine is now threatened and attacked by a “Christian” Russia. Nonetheless, history shows us that even though empires rise and fall, the Orthodox Church remains. By the power of the Cross, and Christ’s Resurrection, God has always preserved the Church.
Constantinople was never the “Second Rome”. The designation of “Second Rome” belongs to Old Rome, especially after the Frankish king, Charlemagne, reunited parts of Western Europe in the 8th century and was crowned “Holy Roman Emperor” by the Pope Leo III of Rome.
The idea of “Third Rome” was initially perpetuated in the 15th century by the schismatic Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III. He refused to have the bishop of Moscow submit to the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, and thus went into schism with St. Patriarch Dionysius I of Constantinople. The schism initiated by Ivan III lasted about one hundred years. The idea of Moscow as “Third Rome” was essentially a schismatic idea, just like Charlemagne’s “Second Rome” was.
Constantinople has always been designated as the “New Rome”, as the new capital of the One and Only Roman Empire. Although that empire no longer exists in secular terms, it does in fact exist as an ecclesial institution. The Orthodox Church remains, even today, as the only surviving institution of the Roman Empire.
Record the date…Markos has agreed with Joseph Lipper on something!
This “3d Rome” nonsense is unfortunately being regurgitated more often by Greeks than the Russians themselves…
https://spzh.eu/en/news/90279-constantinople-hierarch-we-hope-the-roc-helps-bring-one-church-in-ukraine
What a bunch of rubbish! Who is actually going to believe the lies?