When Estonia’s Supreme Court found the amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act to be in accordance with the Constitution, Russian media reacted quickly. Within days, stories appeared claiming that the Orthodox Church was being pressured, religious freedom was being restricted, and even that church activities were being banned in Estonia.
To understand how this narrative emerged, it is first necessary to look at what the disputed law actually concerns.
What is the dispute about?
The amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act primarily concern the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, which is canonically affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate. The aim of the law is to prevent a situation in which a religious association operating in Estonia is directed or influenced by a foreign organisation whose activities may threaten Estonia’s security or constitutional order.
The authors of the legislation have justified the amendments, among other things, by pointing to the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill have publicly supported Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In their view, the Estonian state cannot ignore the potential influence of a foreign religious leadership structure on local congregations under such circumstances.
President Alar Karis declined to promulgate the law and referred it to the Supreme Court for constitutional review. In Karis’s assessment, the law could have imposed disproportionate restrictions on freedom of association and freedom of religion.
The Supreme Court nevertheless concluded that the law is compatible with the Constitution. At the same time, the Court stressed that a mere religious or canonical connection to a church operating abroad is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for imposing restrictions. Any measures must be based on specific and proven circumstances and must be proportionate.
The decision was not unanimous, however. Six Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Villu Kõve, dissented. In their view, the law contains legal certainty concerns and may leave religious associations with too much ambiguity regarding what kind of conduct could trigger state intervention in the future.
We do not agree with the en banc court’s conclusion that the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act (KiKoS) complies with the principle of legal certainty protected by § 13(2) of the Constitution (paragraph 83 of the judgment). We therefore consider that the President of the Republic’s application should have been upheld. Source: screenshot.
Within days, this very ruling had been turned into a completely different story in the Russian media.
A legal dispute was transformed into a story about the persecution of Orthodox Christianity.
On 8 June 2026, the full bench of Estonia’s Supreme Court ruled that amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act, which could effectively lead to the prohibition of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church’s activities in the country, are not contrary to the Constitution. Source: screenshot.
TASS went the furthest in this regard. Rather than simply reporting on the Supreme Court’s ruling, it placed the decision within what it portrayed as a long history of persecution of the Orthodox Church in Estonia.
On the day of the ruling, the agency published a lengthy background article titled “The Estonian Orthodox Church: The History of a Schism and the Contemporary Crisis.” From the very introduction, it claims that the legislative amendments could lead to the banning of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. Readers are then told that what follows is an overview of the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Estonia.
The article quickly moves beyond the specific court ruling. TASS recounts the history of the Orthodox Church in Estonia from the 1920s onward, focusing on conflicts between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates. Events of the 1990s are presented as a situation in which congregations that remained loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate were discriminated against and church property was transferred to supporters of the Constantinople Patriarchate.
After 2022, TASS portrays the actions of the Estonian state as part of a continuous pressure campaign. Examples cited include the refusal to extend Metropolitan Evgeny’s residence permit, calls by the Ministry of the Interior to sever ties with the Moscow Patriarchate, and the amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act, which the agency repeatedly describes as amounting to the effective prohibition of the Church.
In TASS’s portrayal, the Supreme Court’s ruling is therefore not a standalone legal dispute but rather another chapter in a longer story centred on the alleged persecution of the Orthodox Church in Estonia.
The Churches Act Became a ‘Church Ban Law’
The same framing was used by Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The newspaper’s headline informed readers: “In Estonia, amendments allowing the banning of church activities have been declared lawful.”
From the very first paragraph, the Supreme Court’s ruling is presented as a decision approving amendments that make it possible to prohibit the activities of a church. The church in question is the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. Yet the article does not focus on the Court’s reasoning or on the actual content of the law. Instead, it devotes most of its attention to a statement issued by the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. Particular emphasis is placed on President Alar Karis’s earlier objections to the legislation, the six dissenting Supreme Court justices, and the possibility of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. The article also highlights the Church’s position that its activities pose no threat to Estonia’s security or constitutional order.
While the debate in Estonia centred on how to balance national security concerns with freedom of religion, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reframed the issue as a question of whether the state is restricting the rights of the Church.
Estonia’s Supreme Court, which can be compared to our Constitutional Court, has upheld amendments adopted by parliament that make it possible to ban the activities of a church. The church whose activities many in Estonia would supposedly like to prohibit is, of course, the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (ECOC). In a statement published on its official website, the Church noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not resolve the legal disputes concerning the implementation of the adopted law. Source: screenshot.
Russian Foreign Ministry: ‘Something Truly Diabolical Is Happening There’
A few days later, the same narrative made its way into official Russian rhetoric.
Lenta reported comments by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova under the headline: ‘The Foreign Ministry Described Estonia’s Pressure on Orthodoxy as Something Truly Diabolical.’ The headline itself already assumes that Orthodoxy is being subjected to pressure in Estonia.
In the article, Zakharova describes Estonia’s actions as discriminatory and claims that they violate freedom of religion and the fundamental rights of believers. According to her, Estonia’s decisions restrict the freedom of religious assembly and amount to what she calls “чёртовщина” (chyortovshchina), a Russian term that can be translated as “something diabolical,” “a devilish affair,” or “something evil.” Zakharova also states that Russia intends to raise the issue in international forums.
Zakharova: Estonia’s Pressure on Orthodoxy Is Something Truly Diabolical
Estonia’s pressure on the Orthodox Church constitutes discrimination, a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of religion, and simply something diabolical. This is how Maria Zakharova, the official spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, described Tallinn’s policy toward Orthodoxy during a press briefing.
‘Russia strongly condemns these discriminatory decisions. It is obvious that they lead to violations of such fundamental rights as freedom of religion and freedom of religious assembly. (…) Something truly diabolical is happening there,’ the diplomat said. Source: screenshot.
The narrative thus moves to the next level. While TASS spoke of historical persecution and Rossiyskaya Gazeta focused on the possible banning of the Church, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson openly describes Estonia’s actions as discrimination and a violation of religious freedom.
‘Tearing Away’ from Moscow
EADaily, in turn, chose a different emphasis. According to the outlet’s headline, the Supreme Court’s ruling makes it easier to ‘tear’ the Estonian Orthodox Church away from Moscow.
The wording is not accidental. The Russian publication does not speak of the Church leaving or severing ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. Instead, it uses the verb оторвать (otorvat), meaning ‘to tear away.’ The process is therefore presented not as the Church’s own decision or a legal adjustment, but as something being done to the Church from the outside.
The article itself quotes Estonian Interior Minister Igor Taro, yet the headline already provides readers with the preferred interpretation. The issue is no longer the law or the court ruling, but rather Estonia’s alleged attempt to forcibly separate the Church from Moscow.
The Estonian Supreme Court has ruled that the amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act are in line with the Constitution. Once the new law enters into force, it will become easier to remove the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church from the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, ERR reports. Source: screenshot.
One Narrative, Multiple Headlines
Although the wording differs from outlet to outlet, all of these stories point in the same direction.
- Rossiyskaya Gazeta speaks of banning church activities.
- TASS presents the Supreme Court ruling as part of a broader story of persecution of the Orthodox Church in Estonia.
- Lenta relays accusations of religious discrimination and violations of freedom of religion.
- EADaily speaks of tearing the Church away from Moscow.
The end result is largely the same in every case. Readers are left with the impression that the activities of the Orthodox Church are being restricted in Estonia and that Orthodox believers are under pressure from the state. What fades into the background, however, is the question of what originally sparked the debate in Estonia. In Estonia’s public discussion, the focus was primarily on the role of the Moscow Patriarchate, its leadership’s support for Russia’s war, and the potential security risks associated with that relationship. In the Russian media, by contrast, the emphasis shifted to religious freedom, the rights of the Church, and the alleged pressure being placed on Orthodoxy.
Why Does This Narrative Work?
The issue of Orthodoxy is not new in Russian media. TASS’s background article illustrates well how a recent court ruling is placed within a much longer historical framework. The Supreme Court’s decision is presented not merely as a legal dispute, but as another chapter in a story that begins in the 1920s and continues through the church conflicts of the post-independence period to the present day.
This framework is familiar to Russian audiences. As a result, there is no need to explain each new event from scratch. It is enough to add a new chapter to an already existing story. This time, the new chapter was the ruling of Estonia’s Supreme Court.
For readers of Russian media, what remains is not a complex debate about balancing constitutional principles, national security concerns, and freedom of religion. Instead, a much simpler message is remembered: the Orthodox Church is under pressure in Estonia.
This is how a propaganda narrative is created. Not necessarily through an outright falsehood, but by leaving parts of reality out of the picture and highlighting those details that reinforce a familiar and emotionally compelling story.
