Why can a thief who stole from AFU walk out of SIZO, while Vladyka Arseniy cannot?
Sviridov the corrupt official and Metropolitan Arseniy. Collage: UOJ
Ukraine’s military intelligence reported the detention of Sviridov, the head of the AFU food supply service in Dnipropetrovsk region. According to the report, he was sending rotten products to the front, pocketing tens of millions in the process. With that money he bought villas in Bali, new cars, and more.
For now, Sviridov is in pre-trial detention – but he can walk out at any moment on bail set at 9 million hryvnias. For someone who reportedly spent 2.5 million hryvnias on clothing alone, that is pocket change. But that is not even the main point.
It has been nearly two years since Metropolitan Arseniy was thrown behind bars. His “crime” amounts to this: in a sermon, he criticized people at checkpoints near the Sviatohirsk Lavra who were blocking pilgrims from reaching the divine services. Both Sviridov and Metropolitan Arseniy are accused of offenses “against the AFU.” And yet the authorities’ attitude toward them could not be more different.
A thief who stole food from soldiers in wartime is granted the right to buy his way out – but a bishop who fed hundreds of broken, homeless refugees has no such right.
“J” stands for “justice.”
Read also
Portrait of the “сonscience of the nation”
Shevchuk waxes eloquent about the uniqueness of the Ukrainian nation and the value of human life – while supporting the sweeping mobilization that is grinding that very nation down.
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.
Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?
The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.
Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?
Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”
Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?
The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?