Category: Published Letters

Plug!

In “Pulling the Plug on NATO” (March 2024 Chronicles), Prof. Trifkovic writes “NATO went rogue after the collapse of the USSR, and its shaky military alliance.” As an Orthodox Greek, I would argue that NATO went rogue long before the 1990s. Long before NATO proceeded to become an offensive alliance by bombing Serbia and gradually expanding with new members, NATO indulged and supported external acts of aggression such as the Turkish invasions of Cyprus in 1974. 

Even before, NATO indulged the ethnic cleansing of the Greek Orthodox population of Constantinople and the islands of Imbros and Tenedos through terror campaigns including pogroms and forcible mass expulsions. Most recently, NATO refused to intervene when Turkish leaders claiming the islands of Greece threatened to invade. NATO member Turkey recently assisted its ally in Azerbaijan to commit genocide against Christian Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

These are in fact additional reasons why NATO should be abolished. When NATO itself is not committing itself to offensive wars as in Serbia, Turkey is gradually carrying out acts of aggression and crimes against humanity. Exactly the same thing that NATO pretends to oppose elsewhere. 

—Theodore Karakostas

Boston, Mass.

Prof. Trifkovic replies:

While I agree entirely with Mr. Karakostas about the culpability of NATO—the United States government, really—in effectively facilitating and condoning Turkey’s crimes against the Greek remnant in Constantinople and against the Cypriot Greeks, I believe that some distinction should be made between the crimes of commission and the crimes of omission. 

A boneheaded Pentagon planner or CIA operative could claim more or less persuasively, in 1955 or in 1974, that Turkey was too important to alienate in the broader context of then-ongoing Cold War and the country’s huge geopolitical significance to the Western alliance. 

That position would be both morally bankrupt and operationally flawed, of course, but at least it could make some sense in the context of the time. 

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, on the other hand, NATO has been engaged in outright criminality, aggression and subterfuge, well documented by Chronicles authors including yours truly.

NATO’s passivity over the final solution of the Greek question in Turkey 70 years ago and NATO’s proactive role in fomenting the war in Ukraine are indicative of a similar mindset, but the magnitude of the crime and its global implications are “objectively” different (hat tip to V. I. Lenin). 

The following letter was published in the magazine First Things

chicago, illinois

I am a reader of First Things of Greek Orthodox faith under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. I found certain parts of George Weigel’s “What Ukraine Means” objectionable. Mr. Weigel refers to the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate.” That is like referring to the Ecumenical Patriarchate as being affiliated with Turkey, or to the Roman Catholic Church being affiliated with Italy. The implication that a church whose spiritual authority resides in a particular country is somehow to be ­associated with that country’s politics is highly questionable.

Being of Greek ancestry, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Turkish government, despite the fact that the See of Constantinople is located in Turkey. It is most regrettable that political interests have been exerting influence over the Orthodox Church. This began in 2018, when Patriarch ­Bartholomew of Constantinople, in a blatant power grab, seized the territory of Ukraine from the Russian ­Orthodox Church with the support of the American government. Since then, a schism in the Orthodox Church has been gradually widening. This schism has led to a division that has made it impossible for the Orthodox Church to take a common position against the invasion of Ukraine.

To be clear, the position of ­Patriarch Kirill on the war in Ukraine conflicts with the traditional Orthodox understanding of war. In the Orthodox Church, there is no tradition of holy war, crusades, or just wars. On the other hand, much of the criticism of the Russian Church is without merit. The Ukrainian Orthodox Synod of Metropolitan Onufriy (which has condemned the Russian invasion) is the one legitimate church according to Orthodox ecclesiology and canon law. It is now proven beyond doubt that the Zelensky government and politicians in Ukraine have been supporting the repression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church through the forcible seizure of churches, arrests of bishops, and persecution of ordinary faithful.

In a democratic society, individuals are free to attend whatever churches they like. In Greece for example, there are various Old Calendar traditionalist churches. An individual is free to attend one of those churches or the official Greek Orthodox Church. Attempts by the Ukrainian government to outlaw the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are immoral and reprehensible, and promote sectarianism and hatred. To his credit, Mr. Weigel in the article states that the Ukrainian Church should not be banned.

His reasoning that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church would become a martyr-church is disturbing. How about the morality of subjecting an entire community to repression and brutality on the basis of collective guilt? Should an entire community consisting of millions of Ukrainian citizens be outlawed? Is this moral? Is this consistent with modern democratic norms?

Theodore Karakostas
boston, massachusetts

LETTER TO EDITOR

Letter to the Editor: On the Orthodox Church in Ukraine

April 5, 2023

The National Herald

(Photo: TNH, File)

To the Editor:

The Greek-speaking world has always prided itself on its devotion to the faith of Christ and the Orthodox Church. As such, it is of extreme importance that we must raise our voices to condemn the barbaric persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its most important shrine, that of the Kiev Caves Lavra. From the strict point of view of canon law and Orthodox ecclesiology the Ukrainian Orthodox synod of Metropolitan Onuphry is the canonical Church of Ukraine. There is a schismatic entity called ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’ which lacks canonicity, catholicity, and apostolicity. Its creation is in fact highly irregular and problematic and threatens to destroy Orthodox unity.

From a democratic standpoint, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are extremely important. This means that each individual has the right to follow whatever religion or faith that they like. In Greece for example, individuals may worship within the canonical Church of Greece, or they may worship among the old calendar churches. Or they may attend Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim services. The point is they have the right to worship as they like.

The Ukrainian government has effectively decided to outlaw the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These are outright fascist policies that target an entire group of people because they worship within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which was always recognized by all Orthodox Churches (including Constantinople) as the canonical Church of Ukraine until 2018. The decision of individuals to worship within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a basic human right supported by the right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

The Ukrainian government has been seeking to evict over two hundred monks from the Kiev Caves Lavra, the holiest site in Ukraine. Kiev reasons that because the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of Moscow there must be some sort of sinister political designs at work. This is like saying that Greek Orthodox in America and those parts of Greece (Crete, the Dodecanese islands, Mount Athos) that are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate must have some secret loyalty to the Turkish government.

Were Roman Catholics around the world disloyal to their own countries when Mussolini was in power, or when Rome was under Nazi occupation? We should remember that the Turkish government has in the past accused the Ecumenical Patriarchate of having political designs and has bestowed a policy of repression upon it.

The Greek speaking Orthodox churches must find their voices and must condemn the oppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Greek Churches should remember the bravery of martyred Patriarch-Saint Gregory V, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Smyrna, Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens, and the late and beloved Archbishop Christodoulos who always spoke out against injustice.

Theodore Karakostas

Boston, MA

Published in the National Herald March 4 issue

To the Editor:
I sent the following letter to The Economist in response to their special edition on Turkey:

The special report on Turkey, Jan. 21, examines the troubling aspects of President Erdogan’s rule while lamenting the passing of the political system created by the dictator Mustafa Kemal. Erdogan may be different from Kemal in terms of philosophy and ideology, but there is one area where the two would agree, and that is on the matter of Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians as well as the Kurds which were physically targeted for extermination by Kemal and his predecessors in the Ottoman Empire. It is not true, as one part of the articles says that Kemal fended off the Greeks. The Greek supplies were cut off by the British, French, and Italian governments who provided arms to Kemal (as did the Soviets under Lenin and Trotsky).

Kemal presided over the genocide of Greeks and Armenians in the historic Christian city of Smyrna. Turkish President Erdogan today routinely threatens to invade the Greek islands and has threatened to launch a missile into Athens. The genocidal implications of Erdogan’s threats against Greece attracted no attention from the articles in the Special Report. In addition to threatening Greece and Cyprus, Erdogan has supplied the fascist-racist state of Azerbaijan with drones and other equipment and training that led to the ethnic cleansing of Armenian Christians in the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh.

It is entirely just that the Economist seeks to bring attention upon the problems of Turkey’s present leadership. It is also simultaneously reprehensible and propagandistic that the Economist completely ignores the present circumstances that Armenia, Cyprus, and Greece presently find themselves in. Erdogan’s Turkey is a predatory State and his partner in the National Action Party has openly displayed maps showing the Greek islands as being part of Turkey. The failure of the international media to document and examine Turkey’s genocidal threats and external acts of aggression make those same journalists accessories to Turkish war aims and crimes against humanity.

Theodore Karakostas
Boston, MA

Letters to the editor, By Boston Herald editorial staff, Artsakhby administrator

Artsakh

The following letter is in response to the April 3 op-ed by Saul Anuzis. In the fall of 2020, the jihadist regime of Azerbaijan with the backing of the jihadist Turkish Republic invaded the Armenian territory of Artsakh and engaged in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity against Armenian civilians. The war crimes conducted by the Azerbaijanis did not get a mention in this deceitful commentary.

It is abundantly clear that in the name of the horrific and tragic war playing out in Ukraine, that propaganda on behalf of Turkey and Azerbaijan is going to be uncritically accepted by the media. Armenia is a peaceful democratic republic that is struggling to survive against hostile and dangerous regimes in Baku and Ankara. Armenians survived the Turkish orchestrated genocide one century ago and are still facing an existential threat to their physical existence from these two dictatorships. Azerbaijani officials have threatened to attack nuclear plants in Armenia.

In addition to this, Turkey, which is the sponsor of Azerbaijan, has been threatening Greece by putting forward claims to the islands belonging to Greece. Turkey has also invaded and continues to occupy 37% of Cyprus, where the Turkish army ethnically cleansed over 200,000 Greek Cypriots in 1974. There are many who are able to read through and comprehend the sinister foreign influences that motivated the aforementioned op-ed.

Theodore Karakostas