1. In 1416 metropolitan of Moscow Photius and cathedral (meeting) of the Russian bishops exposed anathema against metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak. The Moscow church did not recognize the separate metropolis of Kyiv in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and regarded itself as it successor. Gregory was charged with abuse of spiritual power. Photius called him as “a rebel, set up by unfair meeting”. He said: “We consider him as rejected, and excommunicated, and cursed”. The Ukrainian bishops and Constantinople have ignored the curse of Moscow.

2. In XV century the patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople with the consent of pope Pius III ordained the metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak. The Patriarch of Moscow Iona, which has self-proclaimed Russian autocephalous church, has not recognized the metropolitan in Kyiv and exposed anathema against him. He called Gregory as a traitor to Orthodoxy, he called on all the bishops to sever all relations with the metropolitan of Kyiv. Part of Ukrainian bishops have supported the metropolitan. As a consequence, it was the final division of metropolis for Kyiv one and for Moscow one. In 1469 the patriarch of Constantinople Dionysyus I approved Gregory on the cathedra of Kyiv.

3. In 1690 the cathedral (meeting) led by patriarch of Moscow Joachim put the anathema against “heretical cult of bread” – the assertion that the bread and wine become body and blood of Christ, Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox conformed. It was forbidden to read theological works written by Ukrainians, which “have a common vision with the pope and the Western Church”. Among them, there were books written by Petro Mohyla, Kyrylo Stavrovytsky, Luka Baranovych and others. In Ukraine and in several orthodox countries the anathema was never recognized. Because of this, new Moscow patriarch Adrian exposed the anathema against all books of Kyiv Pechersk Laura, published in Ukrainian language.

4. In 1708 the Russian Orthodox Church has put anathema against Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa because of “betrayal of Christ and the betrayal of great Czar”. This was proclaimed by the Ukrainian bishops in the presence of Peter I in Hlukhiv. They have torn the diplomas and awards of Hetman, and they have learned the doll of Mazepa in the streets. Later, the executioner “executed” the doll on the place. The bishops of Moscow have threatened with excommunication all who wanted to join the Hetman in its “work against God”. In 2009, the Kyiv Patriarchate said: “Russian Orthodox Church established a committee to examine to put away anathema from Hetman. However, in June 2010, the Patriarch of Moscow Cyril asked the authorities of Kyiv to change the name of the street bearing the name of Ivan Mazepa on the name Lavrska. He thinks that the street leading to one of the largest Orthodox shrines, cannot bear the name of the apostate of church.

5. In 1997 the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church has anathematized the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate Filaret. The cathedral (meeting) said: “The monk continued fragmentation of the profane, including religious blasphemy without sacred dignity, had the courage to appoint himself as “Patriarch of Kyiv and of all “Rus-Ukraine” continued his criminal acts to harm Orthodoxy in Ukraine. Filaret did not recognize the anathema. He sees this anathema as an act caused by political reasons. Do not recognize officially the Patriarchate of Kyiv, many people continue to communicate with Filaret, including representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From 10 to 15 million of Ukrainians recognize Patriarch Filaret as their patriarch.

Dear readers, visitors of my blog, today it was reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has given to Ukraine a new stand-by credit line in the amount of SDR 10 billion (about $ 15.15 billions), which is administrated for 29 months. SDR 1.25 billion ($1.89 billion) will be available today. I don’t want to analyze the consequences of how it will affect Ukraine, but I’d say one thing, money will not be administrated for the needs of state.

Link for the IMF web-site: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr10305.htm

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development maintained its forecast of gross domestic product (GDP) of Ukraine this year at 4% and improved it in 2011 from 4% to 4.1%.

According to the update of the regional macro-forecast released on Thursday by the bank, as a result of the fourth quarter of 2010 the GDP growth will be 6% comparing to the same period of 2009, and according to the balance sheet of fourth quarter of 2011 will decrease to zero.

According to estimates made by Bank, the GDP growth in first quarter of this year was 4.9%, while in second quarter it slowed to 2.3%, in third quarter – it will increase to 2.9%.

The EBRD said that, in the fourth quarter of 2009 the decline of GDP was at 7%, a year earlier – 8%.

July 14, 2010, Kyiv hosted an international conference of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), where was announced the need for large-scale propagation of CSTO among the Ukrainians for “brain washing”.
In the pro-Russian government that was established in Ukraine after the victory of Yanukovych in the presidential elections last winter, most politicians want the further cooperation with Russia, to reach an economic, political and military integration.
So, what about the economic integration it’s already too late for openly pro-Russian politicians as the President of Ukraine Mr. Yanukovych is, because Ukraine is part of the World Trade Organization ( WTO) since 2008. And as Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus are not parts of this international organization, Ukraine can not join the Russian project of customs union. It’s a good news for Ukraine. We must say thank you to Yushchenko that Ukraine joined the WTO and he has saved our economic independence.
Concerning the political integration, Ukraine is not a part of the European Union (EU) nor the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). As the EU shows no political will on the Ukrainian question about possible Ukraine joining the EU, gives every opportunity to Russia for maneuvering to put Ukraine in its sphere of interest (CIS and other projects). Rejecting Ukraine, the EU can have a volatile area near its eastern borders. Otherwise, the EU could show its true face to the people of the EU on double standards concerning a European country as Ukraine. Like this, it will reduce the image of the EU in the eyes of people around the world as an organization/country struggling for democracy and freedoms of people.
Regarding military integration, Ukraine is still a neutral country, but that may change. In 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania, under pressure from Russia, France and Germany, NATO has rejected the application of Ukraine to grant the Membership Action Plan (MAP). So, the population of Ukraine is frustrated, the people of Ukraine were expecting the backing of the expected the granting of MAP, but NATO member-countries refused it. After the complete failure feels forgotten by the West and does not believe in the values announced by the EU. What it gives to the EU and NATO? Above all, NATO risks to lose Ukraine as an active partner (Ukraine takes part in all operations of the NATO from “Active Endeavour” to Afghanistan). Because it is not in the interest of Ukraine to cooperate so deep with NATO without membership. So, the new pro-Russian president of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych pushes Ukraine into the hands of Russia. That is to say, he and his team will promote the CSTO and therefore, as the military bloc is opposed to NATO and the West, in my opinion it is a bad sign/message for European and American politicians. Otherwise, in the future Ukraine may join the CSTO and become a rival to NATO.
Instead of conclusion. The EU and the U.S. must put themselves a question “do they want Ukraine as a stable and predictable partner or they want to have a zone of instability and Ukraine who plays like Russia?”.

This week the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Ukraine. She met President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, as well as the Ukrainian opposition.
Generally she did not criticize Ukrainian authorities. Although she said that the United States will continue to observe the level of press freedom in Ukraine. On the issue of Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO, she said that she respects the sovereign right of Ukraine in the choice of allies, but stressed that NATO’s door is open.
So, I have a question. Why are that door being open, didn’t let Ukraine to enter when the Ukrainian government had the political will? And besides, what does the visit of H. Clinton mean? Have someone have any ideas?