Introduction: The political positions of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, particularly the Russian Orthodox Church, have been largely ignored in much political science research. This omission is notable, given that understanding Russia often requires understanding the Russian Orthodox Church. Studying the place of the statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russian politics can provide valuable insights into the political and social dynamics of the country. The research background shows that not only religious orientation increased among the Russian people, but the institutional power of the church has also expanded in post-Soviet era. Given this reality, a relevant question from a political studies perspective concerns the political role of religion and the pattern of church-state relations in Russia. A brief look at Russian history shows that the relationship between the church and the state in this country has been most consistent with the conformity model, out of the three models of integration, independence and conformity. In modern Russia, despite the recognition of the separation of church and state in the constitution and the definition of the state as a secular institution, we see a lot of interactions between church and state.
Research question: The question is: How can we theoretically explain the interactions between church and state in contemporary Russia? This article aims to focus on this question by examining the religious dimensions of the Ukrainian war as a case study. Accordingly, the main research question is: What is the approach of Russian Orthodox Church's to the Ukrainian war?
Research hypothesis: The Russian Orthodox Church supports the war in Ukraine. In this context, the interpretive system of the Russian Orthodox Church, within the requirements of the ruling power structure, provides ideological and religious justifications for advancing the war in Ukraine.
Methodology and theoretical framework: The research method used in this study is qualitative structural content analysis, which focuses on collecting, analyzing, and explaining the underlying structure and discursive order of Patriarch Kirill's statements. The theoretical framework that supports the above hypothesis is Foucault's theory of knowledge and power. Foucault believes that knowledge is directly related to power. Power is productive and the most general concept through which power produces is knowledge. Foucault uses “discourse” to describe the system of knowledge that emerges under the specific historical conditions of power. According to Foucault, the dominance of power creates the conditions for the emergence of specific knowledge in a given historical situation. This framework provides a theoretical basis for the argument that the Russian Orthodox Church's approach to the war in Ukraine has been shaped by the dominance of political power aims to legitimize Putin's expansionist policies. Within this context, church leaders extract interpretations of religious texts that legitimize Russia's military actions in Ukraine.
Results and discussion: The article's discussion revolves around the fact that the prominent feature throughout Russian political history is Statism. From this perspective, state dominance can be clearly seen in all spheres of life, including economics, science, technology, culture and religion. This article examines the state's dominance over religious institutions and their interpretive system in relation to the Ukrainian war. In this context, we argued that this war is a hybrid war. One of the most important aspects of this hybrid war is the use of religious capacities to advance the objectives of war. Patriarch Kirill, the leader of Russian Church, who a decade ago called Putin era a “divine miracle”, has made significant efforts to religiously justify the war against Ukraine. In this article, qualitative content analysis of Kirill's statements and a comparison of its results with Putin's expansionist policies show that the approaches of both (the church and the state) towards the Ukrainian war are completely aligned. Kirill's approach in advancing the concept of the unity of "Holy Rus”, on the one hand and Putin's geopolitical approach to dominating Ukraine on the other, were both focused on restoring the Russian Empire, which is ultimately seen as a political goal.
Conclusion: The research findings, through the application of Foucault's theory of knowledge and power, show that the church's approach is a reflection of government policy. As Foucault argued, the established structure of political power only allows for the emergence of knowledge systems that legitimize the will to power. The church's interpretive system legitimizes Putin's policy in the Ukraine war through fallowing methods: representing the political unification of the Russian world under the concept of “Holy Rus”, portraying the war as a just and holy war between Russia and western evil, presenting Western civilization as the 'other' of the Russian world, praying for historical victory and finally presenting those killed in the war as holy martyrs. Meanwhile, the evolution of Kirill's narratives over the course of the war can be seen as a shift in the Kremlin's view of the war. In the early stages of the war, when Kremlin thought they could capture Kyiv within days, Kirill called for peace and a reduction in the devastation of the war. In the second stage, when it became clear that the war would continue for a relatively long time, Kirill presented a narrative based on a "holy war" and "metaphysical struggle" against the West as the “Other” of the Russian Holy world. After Putin's mobilization order, in the third stage, Kirill began to sanctify the war dead, saying that "those who lose their lives fighting for their homeland are cleansed of all their sins." "In the fourth stage, he openly called for prayers for "victory" and called for Putin's continued success as the leader of the Russian people. The church's involvement in advancing the war goes beyond public speeches and Kirill sermons. Overall, Russian churches have played an important role in advancing the propaganda campaign. Moreover, since political power requires the practical participation of its bearers, the Orthodox Church's supportive actions in advancing the war were not limited to preaching and speechs during the war. Rather, the church has also taken a series of practical actions, from blessing soldiers and military equipment to losing their lives on the battlefield.