The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has intensified scrutiny of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) as both an ideological force fueling and justifying the war (Klip and Pankhurts, 2022; Krawchuk, 2022; Smytsnyuk, 2023). Beyond its role in this conflict, scholars and policymakers have increasingly examined the ROC’s broader function as a tool of Russian expansionist politics beyond its borders (Mergen, 2022; Chawrylo, 2024). These developments align with broader patterns in which religion is securitized in geopolitical crises, leading states to perceive religious institutions as potential instruments of foreign influence or national security threats.
Lithuania presents a striking case of the securitization of the ROC. In response to concerns over Moscow’s influence through its affiliated churches, the Lithuanian government actively supported the creation of an alternative Orthodox jurisdiction under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In June 2022, five Russian Orthodox priests were dismissed from the Lithuanian Orthodox Church, which remains under the Moscow Patriarchate’s jurisdiction, for dissenting views and support for Ukraine. These priests appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who reinstated them on February 17, 2023. The Lithuanian government played a decisive role in this process: in the spring of 2022, Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė formally expressed support for Orthodox Christians seeking separation from the Moscow Patriarchate, and in September, a governmental delegation met with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in Istanbul, inviting him to re-establish the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s presence in Lithuania. This effort culminated in February 2024 with the official registration of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Orthodox Church in Lithuania.
This paper examines the Lithuanian case as a key instance of the securitization of religion, analyzing how church-state dynamics are reshaped in times of geopolitical crisis. Drawing on ethnographic interviews with clergy, policymakers, and religious community members, as well as document analysis of government reports, church statements, and legal frameworks, the study explores the intersection of religious governance and national security. The findings highlight not only the ways in which religion becomes a contested site of geopolitical struggle but also the risks that emerge when states expand their role in regulating religious institutions under the guise of national security. While Lithuania’s intervention was framed as protecting religious freedom from foreign influence, it also raises broader questions about state interference in religious affairs and the long-term implications of treating religious governance as a matter of geopolitical strategy.
Furthermore, the paper situates this case within wider debates on the securitization of religion, particularly in postcolonial contexts where religious institutions are entangled in nation-building projects and efforts to resist historical imperial influence. How does the perception of religion as a security threat reshape church-state relations? What are the consequences of state-led religious realignments for religious pluralism and autonomy? This study contributes to broader discussions on the role of religion in international politics, the vulnerabilities of religious institutions in geopolitical conflicts, and the unintended consequences of treating religion as a security concern.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has intensified scrutiny of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) as both an ideological force and a tool of Russian expansionism. Lithuania illustrates the securitization of religion, as the government facilitated an alternative Orthodox jurisdiction under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In June 2022, five Russian Orthodox priests were dismissed from the Lithuanian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) for supporting Ukraine. They appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who reinstated them in 2023 with Lithuanian government support. In February 2024, the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Orthodox Church in Lithuania was officially registered. This paper examines Lithuania as a case of religion’s securitization, analyzing how church-state relations shift in geopolitical crises. It further explores how securitization intersects with postcolonial trauma and reshapes religious and political authority in Eastern Europe.