Empire on the carpet: how the ROC MP named after Stalin dances in Africa

Exclusive. Imagine a carpet on which global ambitions dance: a vast, almost invisible stage where religion, politics, and economics intertwine in a dangerous dance of influence. The carpet is Africa, and the dancer is the Moscow Patriarchate. At first glance, this is a story about spiritual missions and Orthodox communities. However, behind the facade of “missionary activity” lies a much more poignant plot: religion is being transformed into an instrument of political aggression, hybrid expansion, and the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions.

At the outset, we would like to emphasize that the creation of the so-called Russian Orthodox Church (ROC MP named after Stalin)of the so-called “Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa” at the end of 2021 became not only another inter-church conflict, but also a vivid example of targeted aggression with deep geopolitical underpinnings. The actions of the ROC are often presented as protecting the interests of Orthodox believers, but in reality they are aimed at undermining the canonical territory of the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria, which has existed on the Black Continent since the time of the Apostle Mark.

In this context, expansion appears not only as an ecclesiastical issue, but as part of a broader hybrid strategy aimed at expanding the influence of Schwabrostan in Africa.

We would also like to specially note that the ancient history of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and its apostolic origin emphasizes the special symbolic weight of this conflict: it is not just an administrative issue, but the protection of the canonical heritage, which is important for the entire world Orthodox community.

The initiative of the ROC MP to create the "Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa" is not a purely ecclesiastical step.

Against the backdrop of Russia's global activity in 2020–2025, this looks like part of a broader strategy of Moscow's influence on the continent, where religion is used as a tool of "soft power." For example, in Nigeria, Kenya, and South Sudan, the ROC opened parishes and training centers without the consent of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which created tension in local Orthodox communities.

The ROC's actions are often accompanied by rhetoric about "protecting believers," but the real mechanisms include persuading local bishops to join the newly created exarchate and using financial leverage to consolidate control over parishes. This is a classic example raider expansion under the guise of "canonical protection", which undermines centuries-old traditions and violates canonical norms established by the Ecumenical Councils.

The symbolic aspect is also important: Moscow seeks to legitimize its religious penetration into territories that preserve the apostolic succession. Such a policy carries a risk not only for the church order, but also for the stability of interfaith and interstate relations on the continent, creating a new front of hybrid influence. God-awful Mordor.

So, starting in the late 1990s, Moscow gradually created a network of religious and cultural institutions, using religion as a channel to expand its influence. As a result Patriarchate of Alexandria found himself under pressure, forced to respond to the ROC's numerous attempts to subordinate his parishes and clergy.

This approach demonstrates the systematic and planned nature of Moscow's policy: religious institutions are used as an element of hybrid expansion, combining canonical claims with geopolitical interests. In this sense, the "Exarchate of Africa" ​​is not a spontaneous initiative, but a logical continuation of a long-term strategy aimed at establishing the influence of Shvabrostan in the region.

The creation of the “Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa” of the ROC should be viewed not only as an administrative step, but as a direct consequence of Moscow’s political reaction to the recognition by Patriarch of Alexandria Theodore II of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). The actual split here is obvious: the exarchate was created in response to decision of another Local Church, which is a gross violation of canonical norms, since one Church has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another.

The Russian Orthodox Church of the Stalin Patriarchate claims that more than a hundred African priests have joined the exarchate “voluntarily.” However, critics, including representatives of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, emphasize that most of them are marginal clerics, Old Style, or priests who have come under Moscow jurisdiction for material compensation. This calls into question the canonicity and moral legitimacy of the exarchate.

Another indication of the isolation of this structure is that no other Local Orthodox Church in the world, except the Russian Orthodox Church, has recognized it. Thus, the exarchate remains a self-proclaimed “enclave of schismatics,” created on a foreign canonical territory and effectively deprived of international ecclesiastical legitimacy.

This blatant case of Moscow’s “church raiding” illustrates well how religion becomes an instrument of hybrid politics. The connection with geopolitics is obvious: the actions of the Russian Orthodox Church in Africa not only undermine the canonical order, but also create new lines of tension within world Orthodoxy. Next, we should consider the specific social and geopolitical consequences of this intervention for local communities and for the stability of the region.

In other words, the activities of the ROC in Africa go beyond purely church issues and act as a powerful tool of the Kremlin's hybrid influence. According to open sources and international security experts, the Russian authorities are actively using the ROC to form pro-Russian networks on the continent, spread ideologically favorable narratives for Moscow, and create a cultural and religious foundation for further military-political and economic expansion.

The export of “Orthodoxy” in this context becomes part of a comprehensive Kremlin policy, alongside economic and military influence, including arms supplies and the activities of private military companies. This strategy creates an ideological and social basis for legitimizing Russia’s presence on the continent, while simultaneously undermining the positions of traditional church structures and provoking tensions in interfaith relations.

Thus, Moscow's religious expansion in Africa is not only a church problem, but part of a systemic hybrid policy that combines spiritual, social, and geopolitical components, making the ROC an instrument of the Kremlin's global strategy and not only the Kremlin's. Here, its real master, the Celestial Empire, also joins the game.

Although China does not directly interfere in the Orthodox expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church, its large economic presence in Africa creates a broad geopolitical backdrop for Moscow’s religious adventures. Beijing has invested billions in infrastructure, education, and resource extraction in recent decades, becoming the continent’s main economic partner. It is like a “carpet” on which Moscow can boldly “dance”, advancing its influence in the religious and ideological sphere.

Meanwhile, both Moscow and Beijing declare their desire to create a “new multipolar world” by displacing Western influence. Here they play with different “tools”: China builds the economic and cultural foundation – through investments, loans and Confucius Institutes, while Russia adds a military and ideological dimension – the PMC and the Russian Orthodox Church, no matter how cynical it may be to put churchmen and thugs side by side, but in Shvabrostan, horseradish is no sweeter than radish.

Together, they form a complex, coordinated, but not always explicit alliance in the struggle for African markets, political influence, and symbolic legitimacy, creating a new map of global confrontation.

The expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church in Africa is not just a church matter, but a complex multi-level process where religion, politics, and geopolitics are intertwined.

The social consequences of this intervention – divided communities, lost trust in the clergy, and conflicts within parishes – are compounded by the global geopolitical context.

It is worth mentioning China again here: its economic influence creates a “carpet” on which Moscow can “dance”, using The ROC as an ideological and a cultural tool of influence. Together they form a kind of “two-layer” mechanism – Beijing provides the economic foundation, Moscow adds military and religious components.

Thus, the African expansion of the ROC becomes a mirror of new global trends: religion is turning into an instrument of "soft power", local communities are drawn into major geopolitical games, and canonical norms and traditions are being seriously tested.

That is, in the modern world, religion, economics, and politics are closely intertwined, and the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate are only one, but very indicative, link in this complex global chain.

While China has been actively increasing its economic and cultural influence in the Southern Hemisphere for the past ten years, creating networks of investments, loans, and educational projects, Moscow has chosen a different, religious-political path. And the Russian model of "Church-State" is most clearly manifested in Africa precisely through the creation of the African Exarchate.

It is important to emphasize here that the Moscow Patriarchate has long lost its spiritual independence, turning into an instrument of the Kremlin's foreign policy and an ideological department of the state.

The African adventure is a direct consequence of this fusion: the ROC uses its religious power to legitimize political and military ambitions, including aggression against Ukraine. Such a model is incompatible with the canonical traditions of world Orthodoxy and attempts to transfer the totalitarian principle of governance to a new continent.

At the same time, the actions of the ROC in Africa have deepened the isolation of the ROC MP on the world stage. The rupture of Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the rejection of the Moscow Patriarchate by other Local Churches create a unique precedent: the expansion of the ROC MP into Africa is destroying the unity of the whole Church.

The African Exarchate demonstrates that Moscow has effectively declared war on the ancient canonical orders, consolidating its status as a schismatic force in the eyes of world Orthodoxy.

The greatest irony of Moscow’s overseas expansion is that it is taking place against the backdrop of a gradual spiritual decline within Russia itself. Sociological surveys may record a high percentage of “Orthodox by self-identification” — sometimes up to 70% of the population — but actual church membership, participation in services and sacraments, remains symbolic, in the hundreds of thousands.

For millions of Russians, “Orthodoxy” has long since become a state ideology, a “clerical staple,” an element of national identity that does not require any spiritual practice. Despite this, the authorities and the Russian Orthodox Church are trying to export this ideological “clerical staple” abroad to prove their own global significance. At the same time, they ignore the internal crisis of the Church: the loss of moral authority, the exodus of believers, and the growing sense that the Russian Orthodox Church is no longer a spiritual institution but a political department of the Kremlin.

The creation of the "Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa" ​​is not a missionary initiative, but a cynical special operation that completely exposes the ROC as an agent of the Kremlin, and not as a spiritual institution.

For Moscow, Africa is becoming a geopolitical battleground, where “Orthodoxy” serves as a cheap and effective tool of hybrid influence, operating in parallel with various PMCs and China’s economic penetration. This move has finally cemented the split between the Russian Orthodox Church and the majority of world Orthodoxy, turning the Moscow Patriarchate into an isolated structure, guided not by canons, but by political directives from the Kremlin.

At the same time, the illusion of global imperial power created by the Russian Orthodox Church contrasts sharply with the reality inside Russia: emptying churches, the replacement of living faith with state cult. This is a classic example of the replacement of spirituality with political tinsel — a project devoid of a canonical and sincere spiritual foundation, and therefore doomed to failure.

In short, the dance on this “geopolitical carpet” demonstrates an important lesson: true spirituality cannot be coerced and cannot serve political ends. The illusion of global imperial power is a vivid spectacle, but it is always relatively fragile, because it stands on a canonically and morally unstable foundation. The ROC may move through Africa with pomp and ritual, but sooner or later this dance will show all its fragility.

But the payback is inevitable, because God is not mocked.

Ivan Verstianyuk, religious columnist Newsky.