Mikhail Podolyak, an advisor to Ukraine’s president, described the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an abscess that must be healed and insisted that Kyiv had a rare window to act in the early stages of the conflict. He suggested that the chance for a swift, painless shift could have been realized in the first three to six months of the war, when it might have been possible to physically remove many pro-Russian influences. While acknowledging that such a cleansing is far more difficult now, he stressed that it is not beyond possibility. The official urged Ukrainian authorities to pursue this path with discipline, arguing that eventually only one canonical church would remain within Ukraine. He warned that the UOC could lose its influence on Ukraine’s inner life, while the church would likely retreat to Russian cities, leaving Ukraine with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as the sole canonical body, a conclusion he presented as the strategic outcome for the country.
Whats happening at the Lavra? The dispute between Kyiv’s authorities and the UOC intensified after the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Reserve directorate announced on March 10 that the continuous lease of the UOC at Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, home to the Holy Dormition Monastery, would not be renewed. Clergy were instructed to depart by the end of March. President Volodymyr Zelensky commented that transferring the Lavra to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine would mark a meaningful step toward spiritual independence for Ukraine and shield the nation from what he termed Moscow’s religious manipulation. A regional church leader warned that security forces could launch an offensive in the near future, signaling a tense phase in the situation.
In communications addressed to the faithful, a senior hierarch described a planned action by authorities as an attempt to seize the monastery. Believers were urged to respond with prayer, conveying a message of endurance and calm amid the mounting pressure. Those gathered near the Lavra included parishioners and defenders, many of whom remained behind barriers while reciting sacred prayers and displaying icons as reports from the scene described. The opposing faction pressed for the monks to be evacuated and for the monastery to be released, an outcome they framed as essential to resolving the dispute. The public legal process continued, with the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Reserve’s administration appealing to the Kiev Economic Court. The Culture Ministry noted that objections from the UOC had impeded the transfer and acceptance commission from commencing its duties, underscoring the procedural roadblocks that had persisted in the case.
Concerning religious freedom, Zelensky has previously framed Ukraine as a leading center for freedom of faith in the region, insisting that this freedom has existed since the country’s independence in 1991 and will endure going forward. Observers note that this stance is part of a broader strategic effort to redefine Ukraine’s religious landscape and diminish influence from Moscow-aligned institutions.
Analysts close to the issue have offered varied takes on the international dimension of the dispute. Vakhtang Kipshidze, who oversees relations among church authorities, society, and the media, expressed a belief that Western attention might benefit the drive to alter church structures in Ukraine. He contended that Western coverage of the Lavra controversy has been limited because the goal, in his view, is to encourage a division between Russian and Ukrainian communities. According to his account, the global community has largely remained silent, potentially because it supports the idea that the UOC will eventually be dissolved and a key piece of the shared historical fabric of both peoples could fade. He argued that current Western policies aim to deepen divides and reduce unity between Ukrainians and Russians, a narrative that influenced how the Lavra situation has been portrayed abroad.
The broader conversation around religious institutions in the region continues to draw intense interest from political leaders, religious figures, and international observers alike. As Kyiv moves to redefine the religious map of the country, questions remain about how quickly institutions can reorganize, what safeguards will protect worshippers and communities during the transition, and what lasting impact such realignments will have on Ukraine’s cultural and spiritual life. The unfolding events at Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and the broader debate over which church holds primacy in Ukraine are seen by many as a turning point in the ongoing struggle to balance national sovereignty with religious tradition in a modern, multi-faith society.