North Korean leader Kim Jong Un congratulated Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her official birthday, which is traditionally celebrated in June, TASS reported.
“I congratulate you and your people on Your Majesty’s official birthday,” Kim was quoted as saying by the North Korean Foreign Ministry.
It is believed that the tradition of celebrating the two birthdays of British monarchs comes from George II (1683-1760). Born in November, he decided in 1748 to celebrate his birthday publicly in the summer, when the weather was better.
The tradition was preserved at her coronation on June 2, 1953. Elizabeth II, who was born on April 21, 1926, chose the second Saturday in June as the day to celebrate her official birthday.
The Norwegian Homeland Security Service said today that a man was arrested in Oslo on suspicion of involvement in a terrorist organization. Another person, identified as a Norwegian student, was arrested in Bulgaria in a coordinated operation, BTA reported on 01.06.2022, citing the Associated Press.
Later today, the suspect detained in the Norwegian capital will appear in court to be remanded in custody. His identity is not disclosed.
A spokesman for the Security Police Service, Trun Hugubaken, told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation that the other suspect had been detained in Bulgaria under a European arrest warrant issued by the Norwegian prosecutor’s office. The arrest was made near Sofia.
On May 31, an official event was held in Madrid, which was attended by the royal couple of Spain. Queen Letizia, according to tradition, chose a light and elegant summer look: a pale blue dress with black polka dots in a fitted style. The sky-blue outfit looked very impressive in contrast to her tanned skin, and the lack of sleeves emphasized the embossed shoulders.
As for styling, the stylists made an aristocratic bun consisting of braids. A similar hairstyle is the best way to emphasize the neck and earrings. In the case of Letitia, white gold and star-shaped diamonds were chosen.
A special body monitoring the purity of the French language has recommended that government officials stop using anglicisms when talking about computers, software and games. According to the Académie Française, all English terms in the IT field have a great alternative in French, reports the BBC.
According to the organization, “jeu video de competition” could replace “e-sports”, and “streamer” could become “joueur-animateur en direct”.
The French Ministry of Culture told AFP that Anglicism was an “obstacle”. However, gamers criticized the ban, saying it was “completely meaningless”.
France regularly issues warnings about the “devaluation” of its language through imported English words.
Among the recommendations is to replace “cloud gaming” with “jeu video en nuage”.
The Française Academy was founded in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu and is the official guardian of the French language.
The forty members of the Académie even have their own ceremonial uniform, including a sword.
The institution has long campaigned against the introduction of English words into French, something that technology often encourages.
According to academics, the devaluation of French, the use of many foreign languages and borrowings from other languages undermine the French national consciousness and have the power to make their country weaker.
Between 1109 and 1815, France and Britain fought dozens of wars, and some of the provinces of Normandy and Brittany were long ruled by England. Until the early 20th century, French and English competed for their role as the Lingua Franca, a language studied and understood by most nations around the world and used to communicate with each other.
Ankara will send an official letter to all international organizations
Turkey has officially asked the United Nations and other international organizations to change the spelling of Turquieu’s name, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was quoted as saying by the DPA.
Ankara will send an official letter to all relevant international organizations and expects the name change to become official later this week, Cavusoglu told the Anatolian Agency. He said the UN was “ready” for the change, with Ankara promoting the replacement of the English-language name Turkey with the name Turkiye for most of its international correspondence, including in foreign media coverage.
In December, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a decree replacing the English-language version of Turkey with the name Turkiye in English, French and German, as well as in other languages, and Turkiye is also used in export product labels.
The term “Turkiye” “represents and expresses the culture, civilization and values of the Turkish people in the best possible way,” Erdogan’s decree said. The exact reason behind the renaming and the chosen moment for this remains unclear, notes DPA. In December, state television TRT cited an article saying the word Turkey had “unkind” English connotations because it referred to “a large bird of North American origin” or “something that falls badly.”
The air conditioner is one of the most energy intensive systems in the car. His work has a particularly “painful” effect on electrical transmissions. Israeli scientists have come up with a special film coating that acts as a “black hole” and causes the sun to cool rather than heat the car’s body.
At the heart of the new technology proposed by the team of the start-up company SolCold is the phenomenon of anti-Stokes displacement, in which the emitted photon has more energy than the absorbed photon. In other words, photons react with the surface and “bounce” back with more energy than was used in the impact. Thus, the sunlight reflected from a special surface does not heat it, but on the contrary – cools it.
The main difficulty in creating the new coating was to transfer in real conditions the anti-Stokes effect of displacement, which is usually observed in space or in the laboratory. However, SolCold specialists have managed to make foil for the roof and dashboard of an ordinary old Volkswagen Polo hatchback.
In the video you can see the experiment showing how three identical white cars behave on a hot sunny day. One is covered with SolCold-film and left in the sun, the second stands nearby without any cover, and the third is without film, but in the shade. As a result, the interior of the first car warms up to only 37 degrees Celsius, the second – up to 55 degrees, and the third – up to 40 degrees.
SolCold claims that depending on the size of the car’s interior, the temperature inside can drop by 20 to 70%. So far, the film is at the prototype stage, but it is planned to be used not only for cooling cars, but also for buildings or entire cities.
The health of coral reefs will be monitored with the help of artificial intelligence.
A British study cited by Science Daily shows that coral reefs have a complex sonic landscape that can be used to judge their health. One of the main difficulties is that visual and acoustic studies of reefs are usually based on labor-intensive methods, so scientists rely on artificial intelligence.
For this purpose, they create a unique algorithm in which they insert records of healthy and diseased coral reefs. Thus, artificial intelligence learns to make a difference, and in subsequent tests it does correctly in 92 percent of cases. The team suggests using this approach to track the progress of reef restoration projects. Lead author Ben Williams says coral reefs face numerous threats, including climate change, so tracking their health and the success of conservation projects is a matter of vital.
The Austrian power plant Simmering already has a different employee – a robot, affectionately called by his colleagues Energy Dog. This is the first robot dog of its kind in Europe to be used in the regular operation of the power plant and will report faults autonomously there. The robot is already circling the site of the power plant, but is still in training mode and is fed with knowledge by experts to learn how the systems work in normal mode. From the spring of 2023, it will be used 24 hours a day to help secure electricity for more than 800,000 households in Vienna.
The energy dog learns from his fellow people, provides valuable knowledge and makes daily work easier and safer for employees. With the help of artificial intelligence, they get rid of routine activities and focus on complex activities and problem solving. Future routine tours of the plant will be taken over entirely by the Energy Dog. It will not replace any employee, but will only provide high-tech support. The energy dog is equipped with a number of special cameras and sensors, including a thermographic camera, as well as an acoustic sensor and a sniff sensor.
The digital assistance system inspects the facility for about 90 minutes and detects potential sources of danger at an early stage, such as a gas leak. In difficult situations, it will no longer be necessary for people to enter the danger zone, but they will be able to use the dog to safely and accurately identify faults and then resolve them.
The research project is funded by the Innovation Fund of the Vienna Municipal Utilities.
War changes many things, first of all – the consciousness of the people, but also the habitual course of time. What takes years and even decades in peacetime takes months or even years in war.
On May 27, the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the highest body of ecclesiastical government, after long debates disagreed with the position of Patriarch Kirill on the war in Ukraine and adopted amendments to the Statute of the UOC, “testifying to the full independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” church “. [1]
At this stage there is no possibility for a detailed analysis of the decisions of the Assembly of the UOC. Not all documents have been published yet and there are no official comments on them.
Not surprisingly, today, when information is not enough, commentators have split into two irreconcilable camps. Some believe that the UOC is saving its reputation and distancing itself from the ROC is insincere, fully coordinated with the Moscow Patriarchate. Others believe that an important step has been taken towards the autocephaly of the Church, towards true independence from Moscow.
In this text I will try to reconstruct the logic in the actions of Metropolitan Onuphrius, hoping that in this way the decisions of the Council of the UOC will be placed in the right context.
Thus, literally in the first days of the war, a number of UOC dioceses refused to mention Patriarch Kirill in protest against his anti-Ukrainian position, and this decision received the tacit support of Metropolitan Onufriy. A little later, calls began to be heard for a council and a decision to be made “for the future of the Church,” which many saw as a clear separation from the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Onufriy was in no hurry to convene a council, and his closest entourage – Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanic) and deacon-oligarch Vadim Novinsky – took an openly pro-Moscow stance. It is difficult to say how well Metropolitan Onufriy understood the mood of the Ukrainian flock in March-April. But he was much more aware of Patriarch Cyril’s position: if during the pandemic the patriarch called him every week, he had not called him once in the three months of the war. And that silence was very eloquent.
The situation changed dramatically on May 12. On this day a meeting of St. Synod of the UOC, the documents for it as always prepared by the Governor of the UOC Metropolitan Anthony. There was not a word in them about holding a fair. Moscow did its best to maintain the status quo and would not give its prior approval for a council. The first unexpected thing happened at the meeting of the Synod. Metropolitan Onuphrius insisted that the decisions of the synod be included in response to the appeals of the clergy and that a meeting be held with the participation of the clergy and the laity. And here’s how it was formulated in the end:
“A meeting will soon be convened with the participation of bishops, priests, monks and laity to discuss the problems arising from the war in church life, which concern us all. At the same time, we emphasize that we must do everything possible so that the discussion on this or that issue does not take us out of the canonical field and does not lead us to new divisions in the Church. “[2]
The discussion of this short and rather streamlined wording took two hours due to the resistance of some members of the Synod. In any case, Metropolitan Onuphrius succeeded in upholding the need for a meeting.
Seeing how strong the opposition to such initiatives was on the part of the supporters of maintaining unity with Moscow, Metropolitan Onufriy took over the preparation of the meeting and in fact removed Metropolitan Anthony from participating in the preparation of the substantive part. This is the second unexpected thing. This had never happened before.
This was obviously difficult for Onuphrius, but the only possible solution. On the one hand, he did not have a prepared team to organize such a meeting, and on the other hand, if Anthony and Vadim Novinsky had gained access to the draft documents, Moscow would have known in advance the scenario for the upcoming meeting and would have found an effective way to opposes him.
Metropolitan Onuphrius acted quickly and decisively and appointed the council for May 27, ie only thirteen days after the decision to hold it. During this time he received a large number of letters from various parishes, which helped him see the real mood of the clergy and laity.
An obvious shortcoming of this decision was the lack of any regulation to nominate delegates to the meeting. Elections for delegates took place in only two dioceses. In the remaining fifty delegates were appointed by the ruling bishop. And these were not authoritative or theologically educated people at all.
None of the people gathered on May 27 imagined what exactly they were going to do, what issues there were and how they would solve them. Metropolitan Onufriy’s grand plan was revealed only in the middle of the day. At the end of the meeting, at which the majority of those gathered spoke in favor of the independence of the UOC from Moscow, Metropolitan Onufriy announced an extraordinary meeting of St. Synod, which in turn immediately convened a Council of Bishops, which in turn announced the holding of a Council of the UOC with the participation of clergy and laity.
It must be acknowledged that Metropolitan Onufriy’s bold plan paid off. Moscow’s supporters were confused and their resistance was not as strong as expected. The actual opponents of Metropolitan Onufriy were Vadim Novinski and the Zaporozhian Metropolitan Luka (Kovalenko).
However, if in the morning of the meeting about 60% of the participants were in favor of secession from Moscow, then at the assembly the amendment “for independence” was supported by 70-80% of the voters. And this is the result of a unique situation for the modern Orthodox world: for many gathered, the authority of Metropolitan Onufriy is so high that they are ready to follow him even if they themselves doubt or declare their opposition to secession from Moscow.
At the Council, Metropolitan Onuphrius himself did his best to avoid using the word “autocephaly.” He spoke of “independence” and thus confused his opponents and even some of his supporters.
Three days have passed since the assembly, but the changes in the Statute of the UOC have not been published yet. There are no official comments from Metropolitan Onuphrius on the final decisions.
I guess he’s deliberately pausing. The situation in Ukraine and more broadly – in Ukrainian society – is so complicated that Metropolitan Onuphrius wants to see what the reaction will be: how many supporters there are; what arguments opponents have; and how many are his opponents?
It did not go unnoticed by Metropolitan Onufriy. He did not take advantage of the support of the Council to renew the composition of St. Synod, and left in it his open opponents; did not remove from his post the deputy of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra the odious and frankly pro-Moscow Metropolitan Pavel (Lebed).
It remains unclear who will provide Metropolitan Onufriy with confidential contacts with the heads of the local Orthodox churches in order to reach their position and possibly his plan for further action.
It is obvious that the decisions of the parliament dramatically change the established balance of power: internally, the UOC, separating from Moscow, became stronger, but at the same time significantly weakened. Strictly speaking, the UOC has lost its clear canonical status and is teetering on the brink of division. In conditions of war, this is perfectly acceptable, but in the long run this status must change.
Given that it is impossible to return to the ROC, there are only three ways:
1. Joining (unification) with the PCU, which has already received the Tomos for autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarch – but judging by the firm wording of the Council regarding the PCU, this time will be complex and long, probably noticeable results can be expected only in the distant perspective.
2. Establishment of an Exarchate (or several Exarchates under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the territory of Ukraine) – but therefore there must be the will of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the first place and it is not certain that the representatives of Metropolitan Onuphrius can negotiations.
3. Receiving de facto recognition from at least some local Orthodox churches and existence in the “gray zone” – at first glance without a clear autocephalous status, but local churches will not give up communion, as it would be madness to push in a schism a church in which there are 52 dioceses and 12,000 parishes, and which does not want to enter into a schism; this time it can be called “RCC 2.0”; it is very likely that this is the main plan of Metropolitan Onuphrius.
One day after the Council of the UOC, the Moscow Patriarchate responded to Metropolitan Onufriy and the entire Ukrainian Church with ill-concealed threats. [3] However, Metropolitan Onuphrius is clearly not afraid of them.
It is difficult to say how long and painful the path of autocephaly of the PCU will be. Now, however, it is important to help Ukraine’s largest religious community gain new status. This is an opportunity to show the solidarity of the local Orthodox churches with the UOC. It is obvious that in recent years the churches have been quite frugal in showing solidarity.
Maybe the time has come when it’s worth it?
[1] Resolution of the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of May 27, 2022. https://kdais.kiev.ua/event/postanova-27052022/
[2] Statement of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of May 12, 2022. https://news.church.ua/2022/05/12/zayavlenie-svyashhennogo-sinoda-ukrainskoj-pravoslavnoj-cerkvi-ot-12-maya-2022-goda/?lang=ru
[3] MAGAZINE of the Holy Synod of May 29, 2022. https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5931468.html
Sergey Bortnik, a professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy and an employee of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s Department of External Relations, spoke about the motives of the Kyiv council to declare independence from the MP and attempts to meet public expectations in Ukraine without the UOC splitting. The decision of the Kiev Council was “pastoral” and not “in the canonical field.” Therefore, the word autocephaly has not been used and has not been announced. At the same time, the UOC will not apply the decisions of the governing bodies of the ROC to itself. The decision is addressed to believers in Ukraine and local authorities to show that the UOC is politically independent of its center in Moscow. Since the beginning of the war, Moscow Patriarch Kirill has refused to talk to Mitr. Onuphrius did not pick up the phone and refused any communication. The Council has not formulated an opinion on the position of Patriarch Cyril for the war, but only expressed “disagreement”. The main reason for the dissatisfaction with the ROC is “the personal position of Patr. Cyril for the war “, because of which the Ukrainian episcopate does not want to be subordinated to the Ministry of Justice. The ideology of the “Russian world” has been discussed, but not condemned.
– Can you tell us how the declaration of independence of the UOC happened?
– There was a meeting of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which grew into a council – a legally important assembly, which is authorized to decide important issues and which accordingly took this decision. If you read the decision of this council, you will see that the word “autocephaly” does not occur there – and it does not occur for reasons of principle. This is a canonical term, a term from ecclesiastical law. Therefore, I believe that this document is not ecclesiastical, but pastoral, addressed to believers and also to the Ukrainian state.
Autocephaly could have been proclaimed, but it was not. Filaret did something similar in 1992, when there was a split in the Moscow Patriarchate, motivated by the independence of the state of Ukraine. However, it remained a split that was not recognized, and the UOC-MP now does not want to take this path.
In this sense, what the UOC has done is an option that is not in the canonical field. This is not a question of the official status of our church. We declare that we are politically independent of our center in Moscow. In this case, it is done for the believers and for our country, which is at war with Russia.
– What does this mean?
– The UOC renounces its status as a subordinate of the Moscow Patriarchate, but does not sever ties. We do not go into schism, but at the same time we stop considering the decisions of, say, the Synod or the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow to be binding on us.
This is evidenced by the fact that yesterday (May 29) during the liturgy, our Metropolitan Onufriy mentioned the heads of local churches, including Moscow Patriarch Kirill. This is proof that the connection is preserved, but he did not mention it as “our great lord and father,” but simply among the other heads of the local churches.
In other words, we do not completely sever ties, but we do not consider ourselves responsible and dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate.
– Can this be considered a symbolic gesture?
– No. This is not a symbolic gesture, but a real one. We will no longer carry out the decisions of the Council and the Synod of the ROC for us.
This is important for our status in Ukraine – so that we are not accused of being associated with the ROC. (We pointed out that) we are independent. We announced it ourselves, we intend to observe it ourselves…
From now on, we do not want to recognize the power of the ROC over us. We will decide for ourselves how to live. However, we do not interrupt the prayerful communion with the ROC.
There were options when some hotheads said that we should condemn Patriarch Kirill, condemn the heresy of the “Russian world”. He was said to have no place in the family of Orthodox churches. We did not follow this path, we maintain communication, but our relations are no longer subordinate, but equal.
– What is the reaction of the UOC to the words of Patriarch Cyril for the war?
– No official opinion was expressed. The situation is such that the war has been going on for three months now and we have not heard any condolences for the priests who died or for the churches destroyed by the Russian troops. Not once did something like that sound from Patr’s mouth. Cyril. But when the Ukrainians entered a military unit and a priest from the Russian Orthodox Church was killed there, the patriarchate sent an official condolence.
Mitr. Onuphrius said he had been trying to call Patr for three months. Cyril more than once. He wanted to talk to him and clarify the situation, but it did not work out.
Now the reaction of the Synod of the ROC and the Patriarch is that we (the UOC) have made the decision for independence involuntarily and under pressure from the authorities – this is not true. This is a solution in a difficult situation, but it is free and conscious.
We had a discussion – very active, there were many different positions. There are 53 dioceses in the UOC, 14 of which are currently under Russian control. The metropolitans of these places – including Crimea and Donbass – spoke differently from the majority on the other side of the front.
That is why some wording acceptable to the UOC as a whole was sought. This was found in one of the points of the decision: the dioceses located in the occupied territories can make their own decisions about their lives if they are under Russian occupation. It is clear that it is impossible to reach a compromise position for all, but the decision was made taking into account the position of the majority.
– The Crimean Diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church decides to remain under the rule of Patriarch Cyril. Was it expected?
“I think that was expected.” Prior to that, they were part of the UOC and repeatedly consecrated weapons to the armed forces of the Russian Federation, and the interaction on the ground was with the Russian state. We were blamed for that, so it was expected that their position would not change in any way, it was practically Russian and it has remained so. If Crimea remains Russian, church structures that once belonged to the UOC will likely become officially Russian. The probability of this is quite high.
At the same time, there are three dioceses in Crimea and officially they have always remained part of the UOC, ie we turned a blind eye to the fact that they actually exist in another country, that their activities differ from those in the rest of Ukraine. We closed our eyes to that. It was difficult for us because we were criticized for it. We didn’t like that.
– However, we can not say that relations with the Russian Orthodox Church are completely severed?
– From the point of view of the current parliament, this should be the case – we will not accept the recommendations of the ROC, which does not recognize our independent status. This means that we will act administratively as we see fit and as we see fit.
At the same time, the prayer connection remains, our miter. Onuphrius is ready to mention Patriarch Cyril among the other leaders, but all other hierarchs of the UOC should not mention Patriarch Cyril. If they mention it, they will show a clear rejection of the decision of the UOC council. For example, in Crimea they will not implement the decision of this UOC council. But most dioceses are on the Ukrainian side. Some of them said earlier that they would not mention Patriarch Kirill.
– What was the interaction between the UOC and the ROC in the past?
– In fact, the interaction was not very active. Even if we take not only Patr. Cyril, but also Patr. Alexis. He was on the territory of Ukraine three times – twice in 1990 and once in 2008. That is to say, there was a huge pause for eighteen years when he did not come to Ukraine at all.
The UOC is used to living alone. We were not always ready to agree with what was accepted in Moscow. When in 2009 came Patriarch Cyril, he started coming to Ukraine all the time and that was a big change. We realized that we did not want such care from Moscow. We needed her rhetoric and tried to obey the Ukrainian Church. There was sabotage on the part of our bishops, but there was no need to state this clearly. Now is the time.
In general, it was the higher authority that upheld our decisions. For example, if the UOC elected a new representative. When the miter was elected. Onuphrius, we chose him ourselves – but the candidate is blessed and finally approved by the ROC.
We have also created new dioceses over the years, but the final confirmation that this is legal was done at a local council of the ROC. There will be no such dependence today.
– Is the decision of the council in Kyiv fully in force?
– From the point of view of this document, the decision shall enter into force immediately. There is nothing that requires its application after some time.
There was some improvisation in this decision, in particular a great role played by the miter himself. Onuphrius. He is a spiritual man and does not always adhere to formalities. Obviously, further clarification will be needed. We have declared our independence, but our further actions are still unclear. It should be understood that these decisions do not contain a norm.
– What do the parishioners say about this decision?
– Many are happy. There is a situation of war between Ukraine and Russia and it would be bearable if Patriarch Cyril had at least spoken out, but he expressed unequivocal support for the Russian Federation’s military action.
This caused bewilderment, bitterness, and on the part of our critics of the UOC was a stone in our garden. In this sense, it (the decision for independence) is an emotional decision, it is not completely canonical, but I think it is a great relief for many believers of our church in many parts of Ukraine.
– What does this mean in practical terms?
– First of all, it helps us in conflict situations for parishes. Since the beginning of the war, about 400-500 of our parishes have moved to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Our (representatives of the UOC) often talk about the forcible transfer and seizure of churches.
The main motive for these transitions was not that we are bad, but that we are part of the ROC, and the ROC is led by Patriarch Cyril, who supports this war. This chain is already broken. We express our disagreement with Patriarch Cyril, his position is no longer an order or an authority for us, we say that there is no reason to blame the UOC for its relations with the ROC. This is done in order to preserve the parishes, to preserve the flock and the structure of the UOC in Ukraine.
We ourselves have long been perceived as independent of Moscow, this is not a fundamental change in our self-consciousness. Obviously, this is a coercive measure; we want to make it clear that we are not part of the ROC, whose head blesses the war.
– How will the autonomy of the UOC affect the ROC?
– Now the ROC is losing a significant part of its church. It is estimated that we have twelve thousand parishes, and the ROC – about thirty thousand, including those in other countries. In terms of the number of parishes and priests, the ROC is significantly reduced.
Perhaps the situation in Ukraine will encourage other countries to sever ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. Perhaps a chain reaction will follow, which will lead to the dioceses and parishes belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate beginning to clearly express their disagreement.
– Is it possible that this will lead to complete isolation of the ROC?
– It is unlikely to reach complete isolation, unless the ROC itself so wishes. But the desire to communicate in this situation will decrease. In the current military situation, it is obvious that Ukraine is a victim of aggression. Reasonable Christian attitude is always on the side of the victim, so the votes of support will obviously not be on the side of the ROC.
– What is your assessment of the role of Patr. Cyril in this war?
– He did not say a word in support of Ukraine. Earlier, he said that the UOC was being attacked in Ukraine, and for him this was also a reason to start a war. If we look at yesterday’s decision of the Synod of the ROC, we can hear the rhetoric that we are under pressure from local authorities. The rhetoric of the ROC is very close to the rhetoric of Russian propaganda.
