UKRAINIAN AUTOCEPHALY IN NATIONAL AND GLOCAL CONTEXTS

The article focuses on the development of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) after receiving a Tomоs of Autocephaly. In particular, it briefly describes the structure of the Orthodox environment in Ukraine and distinguishes its key representatives as well as takes account of change in the configuration of the Orthodox map of the country after the formation of the ОCU. Special attention is paid to the institutional development and social activities of the ОCU, which include the formation of its religious network, the transition of parishes from the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) to the jurisdiction of the ОCU, and the establishment of the ОCU administrative and organizational structures. Interfaith dialogue between the ОCU and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) indicates that both churches are ready to jointly revive the Kyiv church tradition. The article also addresses the dynamics of confessional preferences of Ukrainians in the changing religious landscape of the country. The author argues that Ukrainian autocephaly is important for strengthening the humanitarian security of the state, leveling pro-Russian imperial messages in the national information space, as well as for comprehending the structural subordination of the UOC (MP) to the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). The establishment of the OCU is analyzed in the article not only as a significant achievement in the post-Soviet and post-socialist space in the context of leaving the orbit of the Moscow Patriarchate, but also as an impetus for renegotiating relations in Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Autocephaly enabled the ОCU to become a subject of international church policy, to conduct a direct dialogue with other Orthodox churches, and to apply for participation in representative religious organizations. Recognition of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine by the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa and the Church of Cyprus significantly contributed to the ОCU's progress. The leitmotif of this article is ​​the destructive role of the ROC in Ecumenical Orthodoxy at large and their interference with the recognition of the ОCU by the other orthodox churches in particular. The author concludes that the future prospects of the ОCU will depend on the elaboration and implementation of its own development strategy.