WE WOULD have thought that after the press backlash caused by his public criticism of comments made by the Disy leader a few months ago, the ambassador of Russia, Stanislav Osadchiy, would call an end to his habit of openly interfering in local affairs. He avoided public comment on the government’s unexpected decision not to grant the Russian authorities assistance in the investigation of Bill Browder, despite a court ruling lifting all obstacles, but this was not because he had decided to stop interfering in domestic matters. There were obviously other reasons for his silence.
Last week, Osadchiy was at it again, speaking disrespectfully about the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos on a radio show and claiming that Archbishop Chrysostomos had taken the side of the Church of Russia in its dispute with the Patriarchate over the latter’s support for the Ukrainian Church’s autonomy. Until recently, the Ukraine Church was under the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, but the war between the two countries and annexation of Crimea, has led to the former seeking autonomy, which has been fiercely opposed by the latter. The Ecumenical Patriarch was supportive of this move incurring the wrath of the Russian Church that is an extension of the Russian state, pursuing a policy with President Putin’s stamp on it.
Osadchiy’s comments were designed to undermine the Patriarch by using Chrysostomos’ alleged support for the Russian Church as proof Bartholomeos was wrong in backing the Ukrainian Church’s position. The ambassador said that Chrysostomos “told me that he was in favour of our position and not with Bartholomeos. He is backing the Russian Church.” Even if Chrysostomos said this in a private conversation, what right did the ambassador have to make this public? Is it an ambassador’s job to cause mischief and discord in the country he is serving?
Certainly not, but Osadchiy has never shown any regard for ambassadorial conventions in his time in Cyprus. He interferes in local affairs, as a matter of policy, backing parties opposed to a settlement, setting Russian conditions for a Cyprus solution and reprimanding locals that do not obey Moscow diktats. On the rare occasions that Moscow does not get its way in Cyprus, Osadchiy warns that bilateral relations would suffer. He did this again in the case of the Church dispute, saying the possible siding of the Cyprus Church with the Patriarchate would “possibly affect relations” between Russia and Cyprus, at least “psychologically.” Osadchiy, who is more governor than ambassador, also warned Chrysostomos not to change his alleged pro-Russia stance as this would give a bad impression.
Archbishop Chrysostomos refused to play the ambassador’s game, issuing a statement, in response to Osadchiy’s claims, in which he did not take sides. Will the ambassador now reprimand the archbishop for not adopting the pro-Russia stance in public?
