The Eastern Orthodox world is in a state of crisis and has been since the events of September 2018 in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople sent two “exarchs” to Ukraine to establish an “autocephalous” or self governing Church. The problem is that there was and remains an “autonomous” Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Russian Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate. The bishops and priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church all have legitimate consecrations and ordinations whereas the fake “bishops” and “priests” of what became the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” have no legitimate holy orders and their clergy are in reality nothing more than laymen.

The image of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, shaky as it was in much of the Orthodox world before the Ukrainian events, became much worse after. Within Orthodoxy there are two alternate views and perspectives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The sympathetic views of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are mostly those of the Greek speaking Churches. The hostile views toward the Ecumenical Patriarchate are those of much of the greater Orthodox world (including some traditionalist oriented Greeks).

The author gravitated from the former perspective over the past two years into a third camp which is simply “non aligned”. The views of the second camp which are critical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate have been shaped in large part by the Ukrainian fiasco, as well as by the events that transpired after the pseudo-Council of Crete in 2016, and by the participation of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the ecumenical movement which is based on the precept of “uniting” Christians but not in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology and canon law and not on the basis of receiving the heterodox into the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

The first camp which espouses a sympathetic view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is based on respect for that Church’s historic and spiritual roots in Constantinople and the long history of martyrdom and suffering under the Ottoman Empire and present day Turkey. These two camps have coexisted in Orthodoxy and have become increasingly hostile to one another since the outbreak of the Ukrainian schism. The author has long been familiar with the pro Ecumenical Patriarchate view being a member of Constantinople’s omophorion and having been a long time advocate of that Church in activities supporting the reopening of the Halki school of theology and maintaining the Patriarchate’s existence in the City of Constantine.

Whereas the first camp emphasizes the Church of Constantinople’s martyred role in Turkey, the second camp emphasizes the state of spiritual confusion and chaos that has emerged as a result of Constantinople’s increasing authoritarianism throughout the twentieth century and its pursuit of “unity” with the Papacy, the Anglicans, and the World Council of churches. Constantinople’s revision of the calendar without the authority of an ecumenical council and its approach to matters of faith by a modernistic outlook outside the boundaries of holy tradition has led much of the Orthodox world to look upon Constantinople with suspicion.

Yet, there is a “non aligned” camp which would include the author of this essay. “Non aligned” simply refers to an evolution away from the first camp and a slow but gradual sympathy for the second camp while maintaining a middle ground. To understand the roots of the present division in Orthodoxy it is important to have an appreciation for the views of both camps which can be divided between the Greek world and the greater Orthodox world.

As stated above, the Greek speaking camp maintains both sympathy for and loyalty to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The error that the Greek speaking Churches such as Alexandria and Greece have made is that they have crossed the line between their sympathy for the Church of Constantinople and its plight in Turkey, and a blind loyalty and obedience to an Ecumenical Patriarch whose demands have become increasingly divisive and unreasonable. The author shares the traditional sympathy and moral support for the Church of Constantinople against the discrimination and oppression by the Turks, but balks at the unreasonable demands put forward by the Archbishop of Constantinople and unequivocally rejects all ecclesiastical decisions and actions that have taken place in Ukraine by this Patriarchal see. Therefore, the author’s self perception as being “non aligned” constitutes the maintenance of a hitherto moderate and balanced view of current events in so far as the mysteries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are considered valid and have grace according to the authority of the universal Church.

The Supporting View Of The Ecumenical Patriarchate

Most of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s flock was exterminated in the Turkish genocide of 1914-1923 which brought with it the physical destruction of millions of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. The survival of the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself could be construed in some ways as a miracle. Many bishops and priests of the Ecumenical Patriarchate were murdered for their faith in Christ. Such clergy include Saint Chrysostom of Smyrna the last successor to Saint Polycarp who was butchered by a fanatical mob of Turkish Muslims after refusing to leave his flock behind to die without their spiritual shepherd.

The historical witness of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Christ can also be seen by the persecution of the Greek faithful of Constantinople in the 1955 pogroms and after. When the Turkish government organized the pogroms against the Greek Christians in 1955, Turks marked Greek homes and property with a cross indicating that the violence was religiously inspired. During the 1960’s, the remaining Greeks were expelled and deported from Turkey though a process of ethnic cleansing and the closure of the theological school of Halki in 1971 cannot be seen as anything other than an act of religious discrimination.

The Church of Constantinople also has meaning for the Greek world because of the historical role that the Patriarchate and the City have played in Church history and the spreading of the Gospel. Where the Greek world seems to have gone astray is in confusing its sympathy for the political plight of the Church of Constantinople with a blind loyalty to the misguided directives emanating from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The decision of the Church of Greece to enter into communion with the schismatic entity known as “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” a gathering of lay people is partly surprising because despite its historic spiritual and national attachment to Constantinople, the Synod of Athens has previously resisted encroachments on its territory by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The two previous Archbishops of Athens Serapheim (1974-1998) and Christodoulos (1998-2008) both angrily resisted the Ecumenical Patriarchates’s intervention in the affairs of the Church of Greece. Under Archbishop Christodoulos, communion between Constantinople and Athens was briefly severed from 2003-2004.

The Critical View of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Early criticism of the Ecumenical Patriarchate can be attributed to the actions of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis who previously served as Archbishop of America and Athens, and later became Patriarch of Alexandria. It was under the auspices of the Patriarch Meletios that the “Pan Orthodox” gathering of 1923 was convened which led to the adoption of the western Gregorian Calendar and the participation of the Church of Constantinople in the ecumenical movement.

At the time, Patriarch Meletios moved closer to the Anglican church and discussions were held on the possibility of recognizing orders in the Anglican church. Under his influence, the Orthodox Church moved into the era of modernism. In Greece, a traditionalist movement arose that rallied around the defense of the traditional Julian calendar and criticized the ecumenical movement. Eventually, a schism within the Church of Greece occurred which has never been healed.

In 1964, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras was widely criticized throughout the Orthodox world and the Monasteries of Mount Athos for traveling to Jerusalem to pray with the Pope. Further criticism ensued when on December 7, 1965 the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Papacy declared the schism of 1054 to be healed despite the Vatican’s failure to repudiate its heresies and innovations. The Ecumenical Patriarch was also criticized for acting unilaterally and without consulting the local Orthodox Churches.

The continued relationship with the Vatican, the World Council of churches, and the liberal tendencies of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew have led to scathing criticism from hierarchs, priests, monastics, theologians, and lay people from throughout the Orthodox world.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s intervention in Estonia (considered part of the Russian Church) in 1996 led to a temporary cessation of communion between Constantinople and Moscow. In order to keep the peace, the Russian Church restored communion with Constantinople despite the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s establishing a parallel hierarchy in Estonia in violation of Canon Law. As mentioned above, the Ecumenical Patriarchate came into conflict with the Church of Greece in 2003 when it interfered in the territories of Northern Greece.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has also put forward an interpretation of the twenty eighth canon of the Council of Calcedon that theorizes that all Orthodox outside the boundaries of established autocephalous Churches belong to Constantinople. The rest of the Orthodox world rejects this interpretation of the Council of Calcedon.

The Present Crisis

The author has followed the Ukrainian situation closely and examined the arguments put forward by Russian and Ukrainian priests, theologians, Church historians, and canonists on the one hand, and the views and opinions of Constantinople’s supporters on the other. The debate has never even been close. The Russian Church is without question the aggrieved party and is entirely in the right.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has damaged itself. The question remains whether the self inflicted wound will be fatal. The territory of Ukraine has been under the Russian Church since 1686 when the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a tomos and ceded Ukraine to the Church of Russia. At the present time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate maintains communion with all local Churches except Russia, and even the Russian Church maintains that the mysteries of Constantinople possess the fullness of grace. At some point however, the local Orthodox Churches may tire of the uncertainty and the instability of the present crisis and may proceed to hold a council without the cooperation or participation of Constantinople and may proceed to formally sever communion with that Church.

In the fall of 2019, two bishops in the Church of Greece who dissent from the decision of their own synod to establish communion with the Ukrainian schismatics sent messages to the local Orthodox Churches asking for a council to be convened. In February 2020, a small “synaxis” of Orthodox Churches convened in Jordan at the invitation of Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem. This was formally not a “council” and only a small number of Churches attended but a precedent has been established which could pave the way for the convening of a real council with real authority to rule on the crisis in Ukraine.

It can be considered a blessing that the schism in Orthodoxy has not worsened since Greece and Alexandria established communion with the fake “church” in Ukraine. Considerable time has passed and no other Churches have followed the Greek Churches. Since it appears that no further recognition of the schismatics will be forthcoming, perhaps the three Churches who have recognized the Ukrainian schismatics will recognize that their actions have not only failed to resolve the schism in Ukraine (supposedly the motivating factor for the “reunification council” and the subsequent “tomos” and “autocephaly”) but have created a far more serious schism in the universal Church.

Hagia Sophia

If there is anything good that might have come out of the Turkish decision to convert Saint Justinian’s Church of Hagia Sophia, it is the show of pan Orthodox solidarity from many of the local Orthodox Churches. The Churches of Antioch, Russia, Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, the Czeck Lands and Slovakia, Cyprus, and Jerusalem joined the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Greece in condemning or publicly opposing the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a Mosque. Patriarch John of Antioch in particular wrote a wonderful letter to Patriarch Bartholomew expressing his support. Unfortunately, this display of Pan Orthodox solidarity is undermined by the realities of the Ukrainian schism and the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the schismatics and their supporters.

The Role Of The Secular In The Schism And The Possibility Of Further Schisms

The Ecumenical Patriarchate should agree to the convening of a council as the first step toward healing the schism. All the local Churches should be permitted to have their say on the matter of Ukraine. The conciliar tradition in which the universal Church gathers together represents the highest authority in the Orthodox Church.

An unaddressed factor that not only continues to threaten to prolong the schism and also played a powerful role in instigating the destructive events is the role of the United States foreign policy establishment. It is very clear that the intrusion of the American Department of State has influenced the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church of Greece in their decisions to establish communion with the Ukrainian schismatics. The secular intrusion into the internal affairs of Orthodoxy is demonstrative that the secular world holds nothing sacred and views the Orthodox Church as being no different than a secular political party or non governmental organization.

The present American Ambassador to Greece Geoffrey Pyatt was the former American Ambassador to Ukraine during the time of political strife in 2014. During the fall of 2019, the Ambassador gave a speech at the offices of the Greek version of the journal Foreign Affairs and expressed support for Archbishop Ieronymos after the Archbishop came under heavy criticism by the Russian Church after the Greek synod established communion with the Ukrainian schismatics.

Previous to the American intervention in the affairs of the Church of Greece, the Holy Synod of Athens had declined to even discuss the Ukrainian matter. By declining from even commenting on the issue the Church of Greece was in effect maintaining its support for the canonical Church in Ukraine in actual fact. In August 2019, the Church of Greece announced that in the Holy Synod’s fall session in October, Ukraine would not be discussed.

This stance changed after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo travelled to Athens and met with Archbishop Ieronymos. Several days later, an emergency meeting of the Holy Synod was held and it was announced that the decision was made to establish communion with the fake “bishops” of Ukraine at the expense of the canonical Church of Ukraine. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly thanked the Holy Synod of Athens as did former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, the man who instigated this entire crisis.

As long as an unhealthy secular and political influence is held over the Churches of Constantinople and Greece, an end to the schism will be much more difficult to bring about. It is still not entirely clear exactly what happened to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2018. Issues such as ecumenism and modernism aside, the Church of Constantinople had been firmly consistent on the Ukrainian issue from the beginning of the schisms in the early 1990’s until 2018. The Ecumenical Patriarchate had stated repeatedly over the decades that it recognized only the canonical Church of Ukraine until 2018 when it abruptly and without any formal explanation altered its stance.

There have been further negative consequences for Orthodox unity following the intervention of secular American and Ukrainian interests in the internal affairs of the Orthodox Church. The secular authorities in Montenegro desire the establishment of an “autocephalous” Church and following the example of the Ukrainian authorities have begun a campaign of repression against the canonical Serbian Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate supports the canonical Church in Montenegro and has ruled out the possibility of recognizing the schismatics, but Constantinople has indirect responsibility for the situation in Montenegro as actions undertaken in Ukraine in all likelihood served as a precedent for the Montenegrin authorities.

There is also the possibility of a crisis within the Church of Greece that cannot be ruled out. Immediately after the Ecumenical Patriarch’s initial actions in Ukraine, Bishops in Greece such as Metropolitan Serapheim of Kythira began to speak against Constantinople’s actions. Since then Metropolitans Serapheim of Pireaus, Nektarios of Corfu, Simeon of New Smyrna, and now retired Metropolitan Ambrosios of Kalavryta criticized the Ecumenical Patriarchate and called on the Holy Synod of Greece not to recognize the schismatics.

There have also been priests, theologians, and monastics who have criticized both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece’s Synod for its subsequent decision to enter into communion with unordained and defrocked lay people in Ukraine. Before the Greek Synod made its fateful decision, a petition signed by hundreds of priests, monastics, theologians, and lay people urged the Greek Bishops not to recognize the schismatics of Ukraine.

After the Synod made its tragic decision, a group of laypeople gathered outside the Cathedral of Saint Andrew in Patras to prevent visiting schismatic “bishops” from Ukraine from serving the liturgy. When the schismatics tried to visit the Monastery of Saint Nektarios on the island of Aegina the Abbess refused to let them set food on the Monastery grounds. These acts of resistance within the Church of Greece while most certainly welcome may be signs of an impending schism to come.

Further divisions have been manifested on the Holy Mountain of Athos. The Orthodox Church does not have a formal spiritual center in the way that the Roman Catholic Church has the Papacy. Unofficially, it could be said that Mount Athos is the spiritual center of Orthodoxy based on its widespread influence on all parts of Orthodoxy (including the non canonical groups). Influence based on the monastic life of prayer, asceticism, fasting, and other spiritual virtues is more powerful than any claims to centralized power and authority. Tragically, it appears that the events in Ukraine have had repercussions on the Holy Mountain and a divide has ensued based on partisanship and ethnicity. This is a tragic return to previous centuries under the Ottoman Empire when a rivalry existed between Greek and Slavic Monks.

The intervention of the State Department in the internal spiritual and canonical life of the Orthodox Church should be officially condemned by all the local Churches and protested at the official diplomatic level with American diplomats and other officials. These particular interventions have placed all Orthodox Christians in an extremely difficult position. The Orthodox faithful in Ukraine have suffered the worst from these interventions as they are being fiercely persecuted by fanatical mobs of Ukrainian extremists.

Orthodox Christians who are under the omophorion of Constantinople must also contemplate the possibility of seeking spiritual refuge elsewhere in the event that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is condemned by a future Pan Orthodox Council. Freedom of religion and the right to freedom of conscience for Orthodox Christians are coming dangerously close to being violated by the Department of State. Would the schism in Orthodoxy have occurred if the State Department did not view the Orthodox Church as a political prop in its political and diplomatic war against Russia?

This is not to deny the responsibility of Constantinople, Alexandria, and the Greek synod for the actions that they have taken. On the contrary, bishops are obligated to defend the faith, holy tradition, and the canons. It is inexcusable that these hierarchs succumbed to secular and political pressure. At the same time, the source of this problem is political and secular and the Orthodox world will have to confront these unclean and evil influences over the spiritual and canonical life of the Orthodox Church.

Can The Historical And the Contemporary Rivalry Be Bridged?

Leaving aside the secular and political interests and returning to the relationship between the local Churches themselves. The diverging viewpoints within Orthodoxy regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate can be perceived to be differences of emphasis between Orthodoxy’s historical past and the contemporary realities. The Greek world stresses the Byzantine legacy and past, whereas the greater Orthodox world emphasizes the realities of the contemporary world.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate is considered by the whole of Orthodoxy to hold the status of a “primacy of honor” and the Patriarch is considered to be “first among equals”. The first place of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the dyptychs of the Church should have been (and should be) sufficient in terms of recognizing and acknowledging the prestige of the Church of Constantinople in Orthodoxy.

There is a great spiritual legacy left within the Church of Constantinople. In addition to its persecution by the Turks, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has traditionally overseen Mount Athos with its enormous spiritual prestige and it can be legitimately said that Saint Paisios and Saint Porphyrios are part of the spiritual heritage of Constantinople. Historically, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has recovered from previous lapses of error and regained its stature following the twin disasters of the Council of Florence and the fall of Constantinople.

Constantinople and Moscow

Historically, relations between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow have not always been categorized by rivalry. A decade ago there was a strong Russian presence at the divine liturgy officiated by Patriarch Bartholomew at the Monastery of Panagia Soumela in Trebizond. This was the first liturgy held at the Monastery since the completion of the Pontian Greek genocide by the Turks in 1923.

One can only lament to see how the promise of flourishing relations between Constantinople and Moscow evolved into schism in less than a decade. On a visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in December 2012 Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev of the Moscow Patriarchate stated,

“We have arrived in this city, sacred for all Christians, to pray with you in this Church and to discuss a number of important issues. Orthodox Christians have lived in this land for many centuries, in spite of all tragic events in history, and have firmly maintained Orthodox faith. We admire the courage of those Christians who have stayed here to keep their faith and pass it to their descendants.”

Decades earlier after the anti Greek pogroms in Constantinople, Russian Patriarch Alexy I sent the following message to Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras,

“The Russian Orthodox Church through us, expresses deep sympathy with the oecumenical Church of Constantinople and the Greek people which had to experience this grievous suffering. The Russian Church has always felt profound, heartfelt love, forever ineradicable, for the Church of Constantinople, which was for centuries its Mother Church. Therefore the deep sorrow felt by us because of the events which have occurred is understandable.”

In the aftermath of the 1955 pogroms, Archbishop Spyridon of Athens went on Greek radio and broadcast the following message that was a response not only to the Turkish atrocities but the apathy and indifference the United States, Great Britain, and NATO.

“The alleged defenders of civilization and Freedom have not yet realized to what extent they have ill treated the ideals by supporting the acts of violence, and what arms they have offered to those considered their enemies. And yet, at the time when the powerful Russian Empire protected the Orthodox of the East, the barbarians never dared to commit such sacrileges….”

This message of the Greek Archbishop is produced here along with the aforementioned comments by Russian hierarchs in order to demonstrate that relations between Constantinople and Moscow have been good in the past. The schism in Ukraine that has brought Eastern Orthodoxy to a state of crisis was not inevitable. Furthermore, during the period of the economic crisis in Greece, the Russian Church provided funds raised by its own faithful which were given to the visiting Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens by Russian Patriarch Kyril.

It would be an incomplete analysis to refer to the role of State Department officials in the Church schism of 2018 without recalling the notorious role of their predecessors in the anti Greek pogroms in Turkey in 1955. After the Turkish instigated pogrom, the State Department refused to condemn the Turkish government and in fact threatened to cut off aid to Greece. The irony here is that the State Department made no protests after these events or during the 1960’s when ethnic Orthodox Greeks were being expelled on a massive scale from Turkey.

Now decades later, the State Department has intervened in the spiritual life of the Churches of Constantinople and Greece in order to pursue their political ambitions of harming Russia. The Greek world has forgotten the moral support that the Russian Church gave to Constantinople after the 1955 pogroms. The Church of Constantinople which has faced severe persecution from the Turks has become a party to the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the active endorsement of State Department officials whose predecessors refused to protest the ethnic cleansing of Constantinople’s own flock during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Our lord taught, “and do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s survival over the monstrous persecution imposed on it by the Turks throughout the twentieth century becomes pointless if the Great Church of Constantinople does not abide by the faith professed by the most holy and pious Patriarchs Saint Gregory the theologian, John Chrysostom, John the Faster, Photius the Great, Michael Kerularios, Jeremias II, Cyril V, and Gregory V.

A Final Analysis

The preceding essay is an effort to reflect on the differing perceptions regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As asserted above, the essay maintains a “non aligned” stance. It appreciates the historic role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its suffering under the Turkish yoke. On the other hand, the essay has made an honest effort to adopt a critical posture by expressing the viewpoints of the critics of the Church of Constantinople. Also, the essay has been critical of both the Churches of Constantinople and Greece for its entering into communion with a group of unordained lay people in Ukraine.

The Orthodox Church presently encounters no shortage of challenges in the twenty first century. The secular (western) world is taking aim at the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox world faces a series of threats emanating from the rise of the LGBTQ movement and its social policies that challenge moral and biblical precepts. It has also challenged the Church more directly by attempting to co opt it.The Orthodox Church had enough problems to contend with without the crisis in Ukraine.

The Orthodox world needs to follow in the path of the gathering that took place in Jordan last February to establish order. A Pan Orthodox Council must be convened that is truly universal and has binding authority. The possibility of permitting secular governmental institutions to set the agenda for the Orthodox Church and permitting it to make decisions that persecute real and authentic bishops and priests while elevating charlatans to the episcopacy is simply intolerable. This issue must be addressed at a future Council.

The author has made an effort in good faith to establish a well balanced presentation of the contemporary viewpoints regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The author believes that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has always been at its spiritual peak when it has adhered to holy tradition and the precept of conciliarity. I recall a perception of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by the now Saint Justin Popovic of the Serbian Church and a critic of modernism and ecumenism,

“I bow in reverence before the age old achievements of the Great Church of Constantinople, and before her present cross, which is neither small nor easy, which according to the nature of things, is the Cross of the entire Church. -for as the apostle says, “When one member suffers, the whole body suffers.” Moreover, I acknowledge the canonical rank and first place in honor of Constantinople among the local churches, which are equal in honor and rights.”

The Ecumenical Patriarchate represents an important part of Church history and a tradition of martyrdom. All this however is subordinate to the preservation of the Orthodox faith, dogmas, and the canons of the Church. Without adhering to the latter, the former are betrayed and abandoned.

The desecration of Hagia Sophia has been achieved. President Erdogan’s transformation of Turkey into an Islamic Republic with this symbolic act of triumphalism is complete. Now it is time for the Greek world to prepare against Turkish aggression against Cyprus and Greece.

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has achieved a good deal on the diplomatic front. European countries such as France are now calling for sanctions against Turkey in response to Ankara’s drilling in Greek territorial waters. Greece has established important alliances with Israel and Egypt.

Relations with Russia are uncertain as Moscow presently is pursuing a policy of cooperation with Turkey. However, there are still tensions between Moscow and Ankara in Libya where they are supporting opposing factions. Libya has the potential to be the new Syria which nearly caused a war between Russia and Turkey.

Greece also has friendly relations with Israel and the United States. All well and good, up to a point. The schism between the Greek Churches and the Russian Church over Ukraine is still very troubling. This schism was caused in large part by American policymakers who intervened blatantly in the internal affairs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece.

The Church question aside, things are looking up for Greece as long as they are able to maintain international support at the diplomatic level. It is abundantly clear that Turkey is an international menace. While Turkey promotes conflict with Greece, Azerbaijani aggression has led to a conflict with Armenia. Azerbaijanis are a Turkish people related to the Turks and serve as Ankara’s allies.

The Azerbaijanis have recently threatened to attack a nuclear power plant in Armenia. This Turkish nation demonstrates that after a century, the Turkish world still considers genocide to be an acceptable policy. It is as if we are still living in the year 1915.

One of the few things I found annoying with the media coverage of Hagia Sophia was the deferential treatment by the media of Mustafa Kemal. Yes, Kemal introduced secularism to Turkey and he ordered Hagia Sophia to be transformed into a Museum from a Mosque but he also ordered and presided over the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, and there is no question if there ever was that he fully approved of the burning of Smyrna and the massacres of the Armenians and Greeks.

Two recent books, “The Great Fire” by Lou Ureneck and “The Thirty Year Genocide” by Benny Morris and Dror Ze’evi have reminded us what a murderous and bloodthirsty figure Kemal was. In the Ureneck book, his meeting with General Noureddin Pasha (the Turkish version of Heinrich Himmler) is recalled leaving no doubt he approved of the impending slaughter at Smyrna. The Morris and Ze’evi book features page after page of horrors perpetrated by the armies of Mustafa Kemal.

If there is going to be a war between Greece and Turkey, it will be as if there was a war between Israel and a Neo-Nazi government in Germany. Erdogan’s political allies are the National Action Party, the political wing of the notorious Grey Wolves. They have criticized Erdogan in the past for not doing anything to “liberate” the Greek islands.

In the past Greek appeasement of Turkey through the surrender of an islet in the Aegean here and there was able to buy peace. Erdogan’s Turkey is not content to simply neutralize Greek territorial rights over some islets.

Ankara is looking to revive Turkish ambitions that were doused at the Conference at Lausanne. At that time, the Turks were not happy with Constantinople, Smyrna, and the other lands they conquered they desired the Aegean and Dodecanese islands (the latter were under Italian rule at the time). The demands for the islands alarmed Great Britain at the time which opposed any further territorial conquests for Turkey.

The Turks therefore are aiming for a resumption of hostilities that were ended by the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. At the time, Turkey had a population of 13,000,000. Greece had a population of 7,000,000. Greece presently has a population of 10,000,000 and Turkey has a population of eighty two million.

If the Kurdish population were between fifteen and twenty million that would give Turkey between sixty two and sixty seven million people. Greek diplomacy has to focus one hundred percent on the defense of the Greek islands and Cyprus. Its relations with Europe, America, Russia, Israel, and the Arab world must depend on their own stances toward Turkey.

Hagia Sophia has served Greece well over the past few weeks. As disappointing as it might be to see the Great Church as a Mosque, the world has been roused in revulsion at the intolerance and fanaticism of the present Turkish government. The conversion of Hagia Sophia is the grand triumph for Erdogan’s successful revolution.

Now comes the difficult part. Greece was successful in raising international awareness to the plight of Hagia Sophia. Now Greece must bring attention to the aggressive foreign policy of the Neo-Ottomans. Greece must also prepare militarily for the defense of the Greek islands and for the oil in the Aegean that rightfully belongs to Athens and the oil near Cyprus that belongs to Nicosia.

Erdogan has ripped the mask off of Turkey. The Kemalists were able to masquerade throughout the twentieth century as a modern and democratic nation. It was a facade well hidden by western dress and other aspects of modernism.

Since 9/11, the west has been at war with jihadists. Turkey is emerging as a not only a center of jihadism, but as the center of the next Caliphate. The last Caliphate that was universally recognized by the Muslim world was located in Constantinople and was abolished by Kemal in 1924. The possibility that Erdogan may try to restore the Caliphate cannot be ruled out.

It is in the interests of America, Europe, Russia, Israel, and the Arab world to support Greece over Turkey. This is why the next round of Greek diplomacy will be more challenging than the previous round that lobbied the world to condemn the conversion of Hagia Sophia. Greece is now emerging as the front line state against a resurgent Turkey.

Its strategic position is invaluable. Among the Arabs Greece has support from Egypt which is a good start. Ties with Israel are getting better but not guaranteed. Greece will have to work hard to secure a real deal with Israel that will not be reversed at the first sign of Erdogan losing his grip on power.

Greece has a case to make in the United States. It can make an appeal to the Trump administration on the grounds that Trump enthusiastically sought to eradicate the jihadist Islamic State. On the other hand, the Trump administration has established friendly relations with the Erdogan regime. Whether this is a temporary aberration or not is hard to foresee at this time.

In the event of a Democratic victory in November, it is hard to predict how Greece and Cyprus could benefit. Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden takes a pro Greek stance. But the Democrats going back to Jimmy Carter claimed to support Greece and Cyprus and went back on their pledges every time. The fact that the Democratic base is moving to the extreme left of the political spectrum indicates that there may not be much sympathy for a Christian country in a conflict with Turkey. On the other hand, even left wing radicals such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez supported recognition of the Armenian Genocide and condemned the Trump administration’s abandonment of the Syrian Kurds (the only instances in which I can say I agreed with this woman).

The Trump administration still has promise based on its reform of traditional American foreign policy. Trump’s pro Russian sympathies and his willingness to get out of Syria and reverse the policies of the neo cons is an indication that he is willing to change foreign policy. Perhaps his administration will be the one to cut off Turkey? It is still too early to tell.

Greek relations with Russia are complicated for two reasons. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew created a Church conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church and has successfully dragged the Church of Greece into it. Furthermore, Russian foreign policy has been centered on undermining the United States and NATO. Russia is pursuing a friendly relationship with Turkey.

Historically, Russian relations with the Ottoman Turks have been very bad. On occasion, relations would improve. It is possible that present Turkish-Russian relations are temporary. Relations between these two countries were flourishing until Turkey shot down a Russian plane over Syria. Overnight, Russian-Turkish relations nearly resulted in war.

In addition, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey was assassinated by a Turkish jihadist. Turkey and Russia were on opposite sides in Syria (the Russians prevailed with the victory of the Asaad government). They are again on opposite sides in Libya in which Turkey and Russia are supporting rival factions. The future in Russian-Turkish relations is uncertain.

Greece and Cyprus face existential threats that they have not faced in many decades. The evil nature of the Turkish government has manifested itself through the exploitation of Muslim refugees fleeing miserable conditions in the middle east. Turkey has been sending these people to Europe through the territory of Greece. For Ankara, these people are mere pawns to be used to force Greece and Europe into submission.

The United States put Greece in a difficult position through its wars in Iraq and Syria. The refugee crisis flooded the Greek islands and created a humanitarian crisis. To the credit of the Greek people, volunteers provided shelter and relief forthese refugees. But there is a limit as to how many people Greece can actually take in. The Russian intervention in Syria was beneficial to Greece as it led to the Syrian government’s survival and stabilization which stopped much or most of the refugee crisis.

In June, the Russian Ambassador to Athens expressed support for Greece’s stance on the islands and the continental shelf. Recent support for Greece by the European Union when Greece defended its border from migrants being sent over by Turkey was welcome and is hopefully a sign of further support to come.

In the past two centuries, international support for Greece has come only on a handful of occasions. First, during the period of the Greek War of Independence. Secondly, after the Italian invasion of 1940 and the subsequent Nazi invasion and occupation of Greece. Thirdly, during the Civil War and the Cold War when Greece was threatened by Communism.

But there is yet another brief era of western support for Greece that was less successful yet much more significant for today’s realities than the aforementioned examples. That is the brief window of opportunity for Greece that occurred between 1917 and 1920. During the height of the era of the great visionary Eleutherios Venizelos, Greece received western support for her ambitions to liberate the Greek populations of Asia Minor.

That support disintegrated in 1920 with the downfall of Venizelos and the return of the pro German King. The subsequent arming of Mustafa Kemal’s Turkish forces and the betrayal of Greece by Italy, France, and Great Britain is a factor that Greece will also have to weigh in its diplomatic efforts today against Turkey.

Greek ambitions today are less ambitious than they were one century ago. Today, they are defensive but the ultimate aim should be the cutting off of Turkey by most of the world, especially the United States, Europe, Russia, Israel, and as much of the Arab world as possible. The Mitsotakis family had ties to the great Venizelos.

Kyriakos Mistotakis seems to be off to a very good start. His reign is very promising. Greece faces great dangers and risks, but also great possibilities.