The "strategic partners" of Russia are widely employing some common stereotypes, and in order to understand their policies, one must understand their political language. If some politician in some country is standing firmly on his feet, enjoys the support of the population and does not want to please the West, then he is immediately declared an "oligarch." If he does not have much support and expresses his readiness to work in the interests of the West, then they write about him as a "democratic", "anti-oligarchic" force. Everything that an independent politician does is met with contemptuous mockery, and that politician is declared to be a "fascist", "nationalist", "oligarch", "agent of the Kremlin" and so on. All this came to my mind when I was flipping through the pages of Western media four years ago. Maia Sandu was already praised to be “the only anti-oligarchic force” (that is, in translation from the local political language, an obliging pro-Western candidate), and Dodon was called an “agent of the Kremlin” and an “oligarch”. That smiling woman, photographed near the ballot box, is a fighter for democracy, any step she takes is directed towards the prosperity of politics and economics, and any step against her is the activity of reactionary oligarchs who could be portrayed as brutal, cruel kleptocrats. Deutche Welle in 2016 was very concerned about the fact that “70% of Moldovans trust the Church,” and Moscow uses the “Moldovan Metropolia” as a tool. Anyone who expressed concern about the shortcomings of the Sandu program from the point of view of Orthodox believers was immediately labeled to be “scandalous”. Of course, those heated discussions included everything up to personal insults to Maia Sandu. Moldova is a southern country, and there are no halftones. All political figures cast thick, sharply defined shadows. It is unlikely that in Greece, for example, elections are held calmly and without "scandalous" statements. I had heard a lot about local traditions from my acquaintances who are living there. But this does not bother the German journalists at all, because the Church of Greece is following the course that the West needs, and the country itself is absolutely “democratic”, that is, half-dead and there is simply nothing to argue there from a spiritual point of view. That was shown by the easy recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Dodon told the voters: “In our country, religion was taught in schools. And Sandu said that she had nothing to talk about with the clergymen.” Sandu, in fact, advocates the introduction of such a rule – an optional teaching of religion at the request of students and parents. And some may rightly ask a question: should the president of a secular state "speak to the clergy?" And here’s the watershed. Are the priests themselves citizens? Well, of course, yes, even though someone may not like it. Whose opinion do they express? Their own opinion? Or the opinion of the “commissioners” in the Kremlin? Or the opinion of the believers? They try to carefully avoid this question. "Agents of the Kremlin" – and that’s it, no further explanation needed... But wait. I absolutely agree that secular laws should operate in a secular democratic state, and decisions should be made from the point of view of these secular laws, and that there is no place in parliament for examining laws from the point of view of Orthodox canon law, Buddhist legal ideas or Sharia norms. This is for Tibet or Iran or the Vatican, but not for what we call “Europe”. From the point of view of the canons of secular statehood, it is impossible to pass laws with reference to the religious legal system. But is it possible to call the will of the people what is at odds with their moral consciousness? Can we ignore the desire of the people to value the role of religion in the life of their homeland? – The answer is also no. This is absurd, because religion is one of the strongest motives for human behavior. The Communists fought against the Church because they clearly realized that as long as it forms the motives of human behavior, their own policy in Russia would not stay for long. And now there is again a clear attack on the intrinsic motivation of a person. From the point of view of Western ideology, a person simply must be a gender-indefinite creature, have an unconventional sexual orientation or approve such orientations as totally normal, and all the other opinions else are mercilessly destroyed. This has already taken place in the darkest years of totalitarianism. There were religious classes for children in schools in Moldova, and it was not the will of the Kremlin that created them, but the will of believers, who, according to the estimates of German journalists, are about 70% of population in Moldova (more than any conceivable threshold). This means that, according to the will of the people, religious classes should be in school programs. No options here. Do Moldovans want same-sex marriages? No, same as in Romania, where Patriarch Daniel even tried to call a special referendum, but failed to do so. In Poland, a civil war almost broke out over the right to perform an abortion in certain cases. Even while being Orthodox and having absolutely no historical sympathy for the politics of Poland, I heartily support both Polish believers and Polish authorities who are trying to limit abortion, and the Polish Catholic Church which inspires all this. They are fighting for their rights. Why should their rights and their worldview be thrown into the trash can, and why should the worldview of a freak pumped up with hormones and drugs become the norm for a country with a thousand-year tradition of Christianity? Only a person who is totally inadequate or politically engaged (I want to emphasize that – politically engaged) person can approve such ideas. Nowadays, the watershed runs through the person himself. There is nothing left to divide politically. Society is visibly split into those who are Pro-Life and against killing the fetus, and those who are against all this. We need two states on the same territory: one for the supporters of life and the other for the supporters of death. Sharia, which gives personal autonomy to the followers of Christianity and Judaism, can provide a model for this. Pay your taxes, don't display Christian crosses and Jewish menorahs, and do whatever you want. But Islam cannot recognize the people who support the idea of death. No caliphate could come and bring peace to every side of that conflict. All that’s left is to fight, hardly and deadly. And nobody could answer the question: is it possible for political figures not to cast well-defined shadows in such a struggle?