The Mandate of the World Russian People’s Council and the Russian Political Imagination: Scripture, Politics and War

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Points on the paper itself:
  • I think the dissection of the mandate is convincing, which I take to be: It frames Russia’s war against Ukraine as a “holy war,” promoting the idea of Russia as restraining global chaos, integrating religious rhetoric into national identity. It reinforces narratives of Russian cultural and moral superiority, emphasizing the ROC’s role in shaping Russian identity and justifying military actions. Overall, the Mandate aligns with broader Russian strategic thought, anti-Western sentiment, traditional values, and exceptionalism. The Mandate serves as a synthesis of Russia’s war-time ideology, linking Orthodoxy with state nationalism and framing the war as an existential struggle. It weaponises religious discourse to justify the "special military operation" and consolidates the ROC’s role as an ideological pillar of the Russian state.  
  • The final para of the paper provides a good summary: "the Mandate of the WRPC was an attempt by Patriarch Kirill to mobilize the Russian nation into a higher level of sacred, cosmic, eschatological and apocalyptic war." What I would like to see is one step further in the analysis: I think we have known that Kirill and the ROC were moving in this direction for some time: he blesses nuclear weapons, and consecrated a church in the FSB HQ in the Kremlin. Kirill has been unashamedly a supporter of the most awful war crimes by Russia. This has even been discussed in the mainstream press (along with the Poor Monk Kirill's $200,000 watch....)
  • So... So what? So we have a paper that pretty clearly confirms this. This is useful. It is, as the paper notes (line 97), "a step further" in ideological escalation. But can we say it is something a little more? Is there a particular significance of this Mandate? In short, it is an evolutionary step in a long ongoing process of the politicisation of Orthodoxy in Russia (beyond even what any East Roman Emperor past Constantine was able to achieve)? Or is it something more significant in this (arguably, heretical) journey? I think some overarching conclusion on this question would be useful. Underline more clearly the likely significance of this Mandate. 
  • Some expression of this significance at the top, alongside a main argument as succinct as the final para, would set-up a significant and interesting paper. 
  • On page 4 you describe the evolution of Russian views of the Church in war. It may be worth briefly noting, further to this section which cites Stoyanov, that Byzantine (/Medieval) Orthodoxy's general discomfort with the idea of Holy War. See Tia M. Kolbaba's "Fighting for Christianity: Holy War in the Byzantine Empire", Byzantion, 68, 1, 1998.
  •  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Some points on style/editing:
  • Overall, I think this paper needs an edit for style/form, as I find the current structure/presentation a bit hard to read. Fewer short or 1-sentence paragraphs, no bulleted lists, more integration of quotations into paragraph prose. The first 3-4 pages do really need to be smoothed out. 
  • I commend the paper for a clear enunciation of its main arguments. While I don't enjoy the format in which they are presented, they are clear and up front. I might suggest, however, that they could be expressed a little more succinctly.
  • Line 463 describes itself as a "sub-chapter" which it isn't. Just "section" I would think.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1, suggestion 1: elaborate the particular significance of the Mandate in the form of an overarching conclusion. The perspectives: the evolution of the politicization of Orthodoxy in Russia; escalation of activities and discourses promoted by Patriarch Kirill.

Response: thank you! One added paragraph at the end manuscript addresses this issue.

 

Reviewer 1, suggestion 2: express this significance also „at the top“ (in the beginning of the paper) so that it provides a succint set-up for the paper.

Response: thank you! We inserted an additional frame to the analysis at the end of Introduction where we added a sentence: „ In the conclusion, we discuss our findings from the perspective of two questions: has Patriarch Kirill succeeded in re-formulating an Orthodox ‘just war’ theory, and, if so, will its impact last beyond the phase of active warfare?“ This question is discussed in the final paragraph of the article.

 

Reviewer 1, suggestion 3: reference to Tia M. Kolbaba’s article is suggested for the section, which discusses Byzantine Orthodoxy’s disapproval of the idea of Holy War.

Response: thank you! Reference to Kolbaba’s work is added to the text (Kolbaba 1998, pp. 199, 208), where it is explained that in Byzantine practice, ’holy wars’ were proclaimed by emperor, not by the Orthodox Church. Corresponding entry was added to the list of references.

 

Reviewer 1, suggestion 4: the paper needs an edit for style/form, particulatly in first 3-4 pages.

Response: thank you! The manusript has been copy edited by an English native speaker.

 

Reviewer 1, suggestion 5: “Line 463 describes itself as a "sub-chapter" which it isn't. Just "section" I would think.”

Response: thank you, we replaced “sub-chapter” with “section”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research conducted by the author is very important and useful given the times we are living in. The author addresses a current topic, for which scientific analyses are crucial, as they pertain to situations that also impact the lives of many people. For this reason, I am very grateful to the author for this research.

However, the feeling one gets while reading this paper is that many issues are only superficially touched upon, almost like bullet points. From my perspective, the real problem with the paper is the lack of historical analysis. I will provide some examples:

• The author mentions Patriarch Tikhon’s position during the Soviet period, then references the Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church, and finally moves to Russia’s involvement in Syria (p. 5). These are different contexts referring to distinct historical periods. While they all certainly contribute to shaping the ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church, they should be analyzed historically rather than simply outlined in a timeline that seeks connections based on the use of terminology. Historical events determine the use of expressions.
• On p. 6, the author writes: "the ritual absolution of sins administered by priests before or after the battle are not unprecedented. For example, Serbian Orthodox priests gave advance absolution to Bosnian Serbian troops by blessing their army banners during the Bosnian war." Why mention the Serbs in particular? If the previous page discusses the relationship between the Russian Church and war dating back at least to the Soviet period, why is the Serbian Church mentioned here? And once again, this reference should be analyzed in more historical detail; otherwise, the connection is unclear.
• On p. 7, the reference to Ukrainian nationalism, Mazepa, and the role of the Russian Orthodox Church seems completely disconnected from the rest. Now we are in the 1700s—are the contexts the same? I understand that the common thread is the concept of holy war, but that alone is not enough to justify mentioning events without analyzing them.
• p. 12-13: The role of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), its recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the role of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and its relationship with Moscow are much more complex and need to be analyzed more thoroughly.
• On p. 12: "The honorific head of Eastern Orthodoxy is the Ecumenical Patriarch (who is historically the Patriarch of the ancient church of Constantinople), and there has been long-term conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’." This conflict is mentioned, then the text moves to current events, but it is described as a "long-term conflict". Why? A non-expert reader would not understand the reasons behind it.
• On p. 14: "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has repeatedly denounced the ROC’s legitimation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has labelled this war ‘unholy’ and has been critical of Patriarch Kirill particularly since 2016, when before the Holy and Great Council of Crete, the Patriarchate of Moscow wanted to insert a provision on ‘holy war’ in the text of the Council." Here, a source is also missing.

The reason why the lack of historical analysis is problematic is mainly that the author takes very strong positions. Statements like the following risk creating confusion and, more importantly, do not allow the reader to understand the historical complexity of the issues:

• "They have done it with a purpose to eliminate Ukrainian Orthodoxy (ecclesial and religious target) and independent Ukrainian nation-state (secular target)." (p. 12). Is the goal really to "eliminate"? Or rather to impose a particular interpretation of Russia's relationship with Ukraine that cannot be understood if analyzed using Western categories of secularization and statehood? And in any case, what is the history of the relationship between Ukrainian and Russian religion before 2022 or 2018?
• On p. 2: "our approach is similar to that of Hanna Kulahina-Stadnichenko and Liudmyla Fylypovych, who argue that with the Mandate Patriarch Kirill has turned the ROC into 'an anti-Christian servant of Putin’s fascist state'." The term fascist is used here. A deeper historical analysis, beyond simply referencing a source, is necessary; otherwise, the line between propaganda, personal opinion, and scientific analysis becomes too blurred.

In summary, I would recommend that the authors revise the text, perhaps limiting the number of topics covered but deepening the historical analysis of the issues. The analysis is promising, and I truly hope it will be revised and published, but in its current form, I fear it may only generate confusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest the revision of an English native speaker.  

Author Response

Reviewer 2, suggestion 1: on page 5 Patriarch Tikhon’s position during the Soviet period, the Social Doctrine of the ROC and Russia’s involvement in Syria “are different contexts referring to distinct historical periods … should be analyzed historically … Historical events determine the use of expressions.”

Response: thank you! As with the brief and superficial reference to Ivan Mazepa later in the text, we use such historic examples with the aim to exemplify repeating patterns and discourses involved in ROC’s engagement in proclaimed ‘holy wars’. Our aim is not to study these examples historically and contextually. Our ‘contextual’ analysis is reserved for the post-2022 ‘context’ of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 2: why on page 6 the example of ritual absolution of sins is suddenly exemplified with the Serbian Church. The connection to the Russian church and present war is unclear.

Response: thank you. We added a text: “… are not unprecedented among Eastern Orthodox Churches other than the Russian Orthodox Church.” Comparison with other Eastern Orthodox Churches that have been recently in the ‘context of war’ serves to illustrate in which aspects the ROC is unique and exceptional or similar among Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 3: how is the reference to Mazepa on page 7 connected to the analysis? “Are the contexts the same”?

Response: thank you, this is certainly a valid point. However, our emphasis in the related passage of the text is to exemplify the practice of adding the frame of apostasy to adversaries in cases where war is framed as ‘holy war’. In this, the example of Ivan Mazepa serves as an illustration of a general pattern, not for making a separate historic argument.

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 4: on pages 12-13 “the role of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), its recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the role of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and its relationship with Moscow are much more complex and need to be analyzed more thoroughly.”

Response: thank you! We agree that this thematic cannot be sufficiently addressed as briefly as it is tackled in the text. We added a reference to a study by Kolstø and Kolov 2024 to the sentence “The declaration of the ROC’s control of the expansive Russian World as its ‘canonical territory’ oversteps in several ways the traditional and authoritative territory of the Ecumenical Patriarch both in Ukraine itself and elsewhere (Kolstø and Kolov 2024)”, which addresses this aspect in more detail. A related entry was added to the list of references.

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 5: page 12, an explanation needed for the notion of “long-term conflict” between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow. “A non-expert reader would not understand the reasons behind it.”

Response: thank you! A following text was added: “… over a position of “first among equals” within the Eastern Orthodox Church and jurisdiction over certain national churches.”

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 6: A source is missing on p. 14: “Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has repeatedly denounced the ROC’s legitimation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has labelled this war ‘unholy’ and has been critical of Patriarch Kirill particularly since 2016, when before the Holy and Great Council of Crete, the Patriarchate of Moscow wanted to insert a provision on ‘holy war’ in the text of the Council.”

Response: thank you! We added the following text: “has labelled this war ‘unholy’ and ‘evil’ (Bartholomew 2022) and added a needed reference regarding the Crete Council (Efthimiou2024). Entries for both were added to the list of references.

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 7: too strong expression “to eliminate” in the sentence (page 12): “They have done it with a purpose to eliminate Ukrainian Orthodoxy (ecclesial and religious target) and independent Ukrainian nation-state (secular target).” Is the goal really to "eliminate"? Or rather to impose a particular interpretation of Russia's relationship with Ukraine that cannot be understood if analyzed using Western categories of secularization and statehood? And in any case, what is the history of the relationship between Ukrainian and Russian religion before 2022 or 2018?

Response: thank you! The present ‘action plans’ of both the ROC and Kremlin are not recognizing autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodoxy under Ecumenical Patriarch or fully independent Ukrainian nation-state. They do not seek to ‘eliminate’ Ukrainian state and Orthodox Church, when these are within the sphere of influence of Kremlin and jurisdiction of the ROC, respectively. In order to make our position more explicit, we added “to eliminate autocephalous.”

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 8: on page 2 there is refers to an article, where Hanna Kulahina-Stadnichenko and Liudmyla Fylypovych argue “that with the Mandate Patriarch Kirill has turned the ROC into 'an anti-Christian servant of Putin’s fascist state'.” A deeper historical analysis (for the use of the term ‘fascist’), beyond simply referencing a source, is necessary; otherwise, the line between propaganda, personal opinion, and scientific analysis becomes too blurred.

Response: thank you! We added the following text: “not in attributing ‘fascism’ to Putin’s regime (for the related academic controversy see Laruelle 2022), but in attribution of authorship of the Mandate to Patriarch Kirill.” Accordingly, we added a following entry to list of references: Laruelle, Marlene. 2022. So, is Russia fascist now? Labels and policy implications. The Washington Quarterly 45: 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2022.2090760.

 

Reviewer 2, suggestion 9: reviewer  suggested the the revision of an English native speaker. 

Response: thank you! The manusript has been copy edited by an English native speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I've read the article with great interest. The comprehensive textual analysis of the Mandate, the Author(s) extensive knowledge of secondary literature—including important theological texts and the most recent studies on the issue (also published in 2025)—and the accuracy and thoroughness of the arguments all deserve the highest praise.

My only minor remark concerns the quantitative analysis of the Mandate provided: I believe the Author(s) haven't fully utilized its potential. However, this does not affect the overall quality of the research article reviewed. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3, suggestion 1: the full potential of quantitative anlysis of the Mandate provides is not utilized.

Response: thank you! We did not use quantitative analysis, we used quantitative description of content of the Mandate. In order to fully utilize our descriptive quanitative findings, we added to conclusions of quantitative overview of the Mandate “demonstrates that the text was mainly addressed to a domestic audience”.