As Ukraine defends its sovereignty against Russia’s full-scale invasion, a significant conflict has arisen regarding the future of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). The government has taken legal action to ban the UOC, citing its historical ties to the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).This confrontation raises profound questions about religious liberty in wartime—when national security, spiritual identity, and freedom intertwine in complex and sometimes contentious ways.
Government Concerns: Security and Sovereignty at Stake
In September 2025, the Ukrainian government petitioned the courts to ban the activities of the UOC’s Kyiv Metropolis, alleging that despite declarations of independence, the church has not taken sufficient steps to sever its administrative ties to Moscow. As such, some Ukrainians see it as a potential instrument of foreign influence during war.(AP News, Evrim Ağacı)
This action stems from a law adopted in August 2024—“On the Protection of the Constitutional Order in the Field of Activities of Religious Organizations”—which prohibits religious organizations connected to aggressor states (namely Russia) from operating within Ukraine. Organizations that fail to demonstrate disaffiliation within a nine-month window may be banned and stripped of their property rights. (Wikipedia, Carnegie Endowment)
The government insists this is not a crackdown on faith, but rather a matter of preserving national unity and preventing spiritual institutions from inadvertently supporting the aggressor. It views the move as a defensive—but measured—response to “weaponized religion.” (United States Institute of Peace, Wall Street Journal)
The UOC’s Defense: Identity, Autonomy, and Religious Rights
The UOC counters that it publicly denounced Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and amended its statutes to remove references to Moscow. It claims to possess canonical autonomy and argues that its independence is genuine. (AP News, Wikipedia, Carnegie Endowment)
Its lawyers have denounced the government’s move as politically motivated, arguing that it punishes a religious community—many of whose members are loyal Ukrainians—rather than addressing specific wrongdoing. They stress that closing an institution with deep historical roots will violate rights to freedom of religion and due process.(AP News, Evrim Ağacı)
International bodies, including the UN and U.S. watchdogs, have voiced concerns about “collective punishment,” noting that blanket actions against religious groups risk undermining democratic values even amid wartime. (AP News, United States Institute of Peace)
A Constitutional Tightrope: Balancing Liberty and Security
Ukraine’s constitutional framework guarantees freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Article 35 of the Ukrainian Constitution affirms that any restriction on religious freedom is permitted only to protect public order, morality, or the rights of others. (Wikipedia)
The state faces a delicate challenge: ensuring that religious institutions do not become proxies for foreign aggressors, while also protecting the right of millions of believers to worship.
This tension is not unique—democracies often face heightened security measures during conflict, which can stretch liberties. The UOC case stands at this very intersection: Between legitimate safeguards and the erosion of religious freedom. (Wall Street Journal, Canopy Forum)
What Lies Ahead
The legal proceedings remain underway. If the court rules in Ukraine’s favor, the UOC may be dissolved, and church properties—many of which are leased from the state—could be seized. The church may appeal further. The outcome could emerge within months. (AP News, National Catholic Reporter)
The decision will have implications beyond Ukraine as it will evaluate whether democracies at war can maintain religious diversity without jeopardizing national security. Additionally, it sets a precedent for how governments might handle religious institutions that are seen as associated with foreign powers, particularly during times of conflict.
Conclusion
In times of war, nations often strike a delicate balance between civil liberties and national security. Ukraine’s actions against the UOC reflect this tension. While state sovereignty and public safety are vital, they must be weighed carefully against the rights enshrined in democratic charters and the principle of religious tolerance.
This case underscores why vigilance is necessary: It is not merely a legal battle over one church—it is a moral test about how democracies navigate religion, identity, and freedom when every aspect of the state is under threat.
Steve Bowcut is an award-winning journalist. He is an editor and writer for Religious Freedom Under Fire as well as other security and non-security online publications. Follow and connect with Steve on Twitter, Substack, and Facebook.
