Putin is afraid of a fifth column at work within his country. He knows the West has been scheming to remove him from power. He also is attempting to forge a Russian unity or monolith - or what I would call a sacral state. But even this is nuanced as Russia has no issues with its Tatar population or those of Central Asian heritage who are Muslim. They may live as something akin to second-class citizens (in some cases) but they are not persecuted on the basis of religion. There are even indigenous Buddhists in Russia - such as the Kalmyks who have their own autonomous republic. This too is not a problem for the Kremlin.
These are customary faiths integrated into the culture. What Putin and other Eurasian leaders do not like are sectarian groups operating in their midst who subvert the extant culture - who tell their members not to participate in society, to reject conscription, to ignore holidays and the like. This is why the Watchtower Society has suffered so much grief. The Evangelical community is more likely to participate in mainstream life, but it serves as a beach-head for Western values and (potentially) for Western political interests. This is indisputable and very visible when it comes to places like China.
Putin has embraced a narrative akin to the anti-modernist popes of more than a century ago. While Western Evangelicals aren't going to be conscientious objectors or reject Christmas, they are likely to become politically active, and their movement is a vehicle for Western individualism and things like feminism. And though these Evangelicals would reject the narrative, to traditionalist communities such Western values will (after a couple of generations) morph into homosexual activism and other forms of identity politics. Putin believes (with good reason) that Western Enlightenment (or Classical) Liberalism will destroy the heart and soul of Russian society and so he's determined to block its progress.
But in terms of the immediate, he's trying to prevent NATO from encircling him and he doesn't want to see Western money flooding the street in service to some kind of color revolution. Western NGO's and Evangelicals are essentially there to undermine him (as he sees it) and they could easily serve as a means of moving money and organizing opposition. There is historical precedent for this and so his fears (though dismissed as absurd in Western discourse) are not unfounded.
As such, the Evangelical community in Russia should be doing everything it can to distance itself from Western values and political interests and focus its attention and testimony on gospel-related issues. At that point, if they're persecuted, there's no disputing the cause. It's for the gospel.
I realize this kind of thinking is far too nuanced for most in the West who confuse Western Liberalism, cultural transformation, and sacralist thinking with their faith. As such I can turn on Christian radio and the anchor will say that Wang Yi of the Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu (who is now in prison) is being persecuted 'because he wanted to tell people about Jesus'. This in inaccurate if not an outright lie. In reality, he's in prison for perceived collaboration with China's enemies, meeting with them in the United States, and then travelling back to China and openly defying the state and its laws - playing the role of provocateur. As such, he's a political prisoner, not a Christian suffering persecution and incarceration for the faith.
The Evangelicals standing in Kyiv are expressing their solidarity with a regime that is (by all accounts) highly corrupt, increasingly authoritarian, and has incorporated Neo-Nazis into its military ranks. Their actions are dubious at best, and certainly reckless.
The move lacks basic wisdom and moral clarity and yet it also sends a very stark message to Moscow - the Evangelicals within Russia are indeed a fifth column.
It's the worst thing these leaders could have done in terms of their Russian brethren. And unless Russian Evangelicals denounce the move (which they won't), then Putin has every reason to believe they support such declarations and are working to see his government toppled.
Zelenskiy (it should also be noted) is Jewish - why would they pray with him? He doesn't pray to the same God - the God of Scripture is only known through Jesus Christ. So we're also have a display a significant degree of ecumenical error.
His government is kidnapping young men off the street and forcing them into the military. Even his own people are complaining about the degree of corruption - it's becoming an issue just as important as the war itself. Zelenskiy (and his predecessors) has launched a Ukrainian nationalist campaign, suppressing the language of minorities - of Hungarians, Russians, and others. These are people who have lived in the places long before Ukraine even came into existence - in areas that once were part of Hungary and Poland for example. This is inexcusable in places like Odessa where Russian has been the primary language for generations. The same was true in the Crimea before it was annexed. Even some Ukrainians have complained about this suppression in the context of Odessa - but they do so with the fear of being arrested.
One can understand Western Evangelicals feeling compassion for the Ukrainian people - though again the narratives and framing of the war have been misleading from the beginning. The notion that Zelenskiy's government stands for Western values and the rule of law is problematic to say the least.
But to make this kind of political statement? Have they lost all sense?
And then to make it worse, they have NATO heads of state at the prayer meeting and even US political figures. From Moscow's standpoint these Evangelicals have signed on to the war and the NATO agenda (which Putin believes to be an existential threat). And they are (by word and deed) endorsing the war - and again, unless Russian Evangelicals denounce this, it will be assumed they stand in solidarity with these people meeting in Kyiv.
I don't wish to sound like I'm supporting a 'Ukraine is illegitimate' position, but in reality it was a republic created under the various polities that would eventually become the USSR. Basically, during the latter part of World War I was the first time there was ever a political entity with the name 'the Ukraine' attached to it - which historically was a reference to the borderland-frontier region, not an ethnic group. The region was also long referred to as 'Little Russia' in connection with 'Great Russia' to its north. Kyiv or the Kievan Rus was one of the foundation polities of what would become Russia.
And then when the USSR unexpectedly broke up at the end of 1991, these political units (which included the Ukrainian SSR) suddenly became independent countries. It was all haphazard and would have resulted in conflict at the time except for the fact that Kyiv agreed to allow the Russian navy to continue to operate out of Crimea, and Moscow was unable to deal with all the chaos associated with military hardware and nuclear weapons. It's not as if the country has this long heritage and 'won' independence in 1991. That's not really how that happened. And again, Crimea was attached to Ukraine in the 1950's by Khrushchev - it was a bureaucratic/administrative decision on his part. It was not as if he was making some kind of profound cultural and historical statement about the territory's proper political placement.
Washington and NATO have looked with longing to Ukraine since the 1990's and especially since the era of rapid NATO expansion. They find its geopolitical positioning and resources highly desirable - as did another European leader in the 1930's and 40's. And yet the country has been a corrupt mess since its inception and has proven repeatedly frustrating. It was when Western interests started to push hard into Ukraine and when Russia started to stabilize under Putin that the conflict began in earnest. This was the early 2000's - long before the Maidan coup, the seizure of Crimea, the war in the Donbass, or the full invasion. The narrative that Putin's actions in 2014 or 2022 constitute 'unprovoked aggression' is a bald-faced lie.
The Evangelical publication seems determined to propagate this line as well as the Bucha Massacre narrative - an issue that is still disputed and debated. I won't pretend the Russians have been kind, but given the way Western media has framed the issues, obscured Ukrainian scandal, covered up the existence and conduct of the Neo-Nazi ultra-nationalist units, and in general reported on the war - it's impossible not to be sceptical, if not outright cynical when it comes to Western reporting.
Western Evangelicals could have encouraged their Ukrainian brethren but that's not what happened here. This was something else entirely and it's troubling to say the least.
And this was before I encountered the sacrilege of Mike Pence - the man who sold his soul to join forces with a thief, a whoremongering rapist, serial liar, and mass murderer. Pence has absolutely zero moral standing. He should have been put out of the Church long ago, but corrupt clerics support him and as such there is the odour of apostasy hanging over this meeting like a noxious cloud.
Shame on the 'Christian Daily' (so-called) for giving a platform to one such as Pence who spreads lies and myths in the name of Christ. My blood boils as I read his reference to America being the 'arsenal of democracy' - what a travesty. And the fact that this America is (to Pence) somehow an extension or expression of the Kingdom of God - it's blasphemous. It is only made more obscene by the invocation of Lindsey Graham, a bloodthirsty, lying, Christ-hating maniac who has gone to his reward.
Shame on the Christian Daily. Shame on these Evangelical leaders. They say they would promote peace - does peace come about through lies? Is God honoured by myth-making, deceit, and the proxy-wars of empire? American Evangelicals seem to think so and that's why they honour blaspheming apostates like Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence.