We’ll take this misinformation one step at a time.
As I understand it, the split in Orthodox is because the breakaway churches do not want Ukraine to be part of Russia’s canonical territory. They want their own independent patriarchate. Four hundred years ago, they turned to the Bishop of Rome through the Union of Brest, but over time Russia got its canonical territory back, with the Greek Catholics largely confined to Western-controlled territory such as Galicia.
You apparently do not understand. The Church of Kyiv predates Moscow by a significant number of centuries. The Church of Kyiv always had close ties with Constantinople, and secondarily Antioch until well into the seventeenth century and the expansion of Muscovy. Even St. Peter Mohyla had a plan for a suggested reintegration of the Kyivan Metropolia with Rome and Constantinople based on a dual-communion. His untimetly death and Muscovite expansion did not see that through. Ukrainians are Ukrainians, and not Russians. That goes for the ecclesiological provenance as well as the ethnic.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church was suppressed sometimes violently until the 20th century. Like Bulgaria or other Churches which deserved and eventually received autocephally, the Kyivan Church also is realizing its growing pains with overt pressure from Moscow not to do so. Remember the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was actually declared to be “without grace” by Constantinople for almost 75 years and thus all of her priests and sacraments invalid (at least in the eyes of Constantinople).
Most recent statistics as I cited above show the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate gaining ground at a more rapid pace in the last five years. +Kyrill’s visit seems much more to avert any further movement towards autocephaly than anything else. Why shouldn’t the Church who is the precursor of Moscow be granted autocephaly?
The Greek Catholics in Tsarist areas were forceably reintegrated either into the Polish Latin parishes or the Orthodox (or in the case of Pratulyn, just executed).
Under communism, all church’s non-affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate were driven underground, including I think at least one predecessor church of the current breakaways. The current leader of the “Kiev Patriarchate” actually was a mouthpiece for Moscow Patriarch years ago in calling for non-affiliated churches to return to Moscow. He has since changed his tune, since he now leads one of his own.
Unlike Agent Drozdov, the former Patriarch +Alexei, the current Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate, +Filaret, has publically asked for forgiveness for his acts while in the Moscow Patriarchate. He essentially threw away all of his political clout, his financial future of salary, benefits, etc. with the Moscow Patriarchate to lead a fledgling Church who was just coming out of the catacombs in many ways, and a very unsure prospect. I certainly do not condone many things that +Filaret likely did in his past; realistically every Soviet-era hierarch of the MP, including the current Patriarch, has baggage associated with the outfall from the Sergian capitulation of the MP during the Stalin era. Compromise was part and parcel of obtaining an episcopal appointment.
If there is a Ukraine patriarch - an academic question at this point - where do the Byzantine Catholics fit in this puzzle? The current Ukraine president (member of the KP) has been saying nice things about the Greek Catholics and even showed up at a Marian shrine.
We already have a Patriarch; like the Maronites we elected one and sooner or later it will be recognized outside of our Church (the Melkite Patriarch addresses our Patriarch as such). Regarding President Yushchenko, his personal religion is his business, but if he chooses to support Churches that actually represent an historic Kyivan ecclesiological identity, all the better in my book rather than continuing to support the political and religious suppression coming from the MP.
Considering the abortion rate in Russia is the highest in the entire world, and has been for probably a decade (certainly since the Church has been able to operate freely) I am not sure what attraction there is, anyway, at least on a level of moral teachings.
My gut feeling is that the Vatican will avoid gestures seen as provocative to Moscow as part of groundwork for a papal visit there. So they’d likely stay out of the inter-Orthodox spat. And we’re not likely to see a Ukrainian Catholic patriarch either.
Ostpolitik is still present; it just now takes more subtle forms.
Regarding the Patriarchate, those of us in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church commemorate our leader as Patriarch; for Eastern Christians once we realize something liturgically the lex orandi reinforces the lex credeni. My bishop actually directed all clergy to commemorate His Beatitude as Patriarch; he does so every Pontifical Liturgy as well. In Eastern Christianity, if something is not recognized on the level of the local or particular Church, it doesn’t exist.