To read politics only in religious optics is blindness, but to exclude religious influences from politics, even instrumentalizations, is surrealism.

In general, the meanings of most individuals are not limited to their religious affiliation. But even if religion is only one influential element among many others, its power cannot be neglected. Religious legitimacy is a frequently misused tool. Joseph Kony, the leader of the resistance army in Uganda, called himself God's spokesman. He went further when he established a political theology in Akoli, a combination of nationalism and Christianity. The motivation for the 9/11 attacks was based, at least in part, on an extreme version of the extremist Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood worldviews, while Buddhist nationalists in Sri Lanka, Hindus in India, and ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel believe that the task of their is to behave in accordance with religious traditions. For this, they enjoy a special political mandate. Many of them are paid by the state just to pray all the time for the welfare of the people and the state. And while Chechens consider Islamic Sufism to be both a religious and a national identity element, in Iran Shi'ism has long since become a state doctrine.

Despite the fact that most countries in the world are considered democratic and semi-democratic, the impact of religious beliefs on politics continues to be significant. Some states treat religion as part of their national ideology or as an element of that ideology. A study of the religious policies of 177 countries shows that in practice official support for a single religion is common. From this study, 41 states (23.1%) have official religion, and 44 states (24.8%), despite not declaring an official religion, support one religion more than others. This shows that almost half of the countries in the world consider it sufficient to support a religion in official politics, at least at the domestic level. In other words, religious legitimacy continues, as does the involvement of states in religious affairs. But the uncertainty remains whether states aim to support or control religion. On the other hand, some research shows that religious tradition influences the extent to which governments are authoritarian or democratic, and how this reflects on the formation of alliances.

During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union beyond its influence in Eastern Europe, strengthened alliances with dictatorial military regimes, especially in the Middle East, while the West largely supported autocratic parliamentary monarchies. During the Arab Spring, Russia confirmed the same status quo. The failure of the Arab Spring, beyond the negligence and bureaucracies of the West, is largely blamed on Russia's support for its longtime allies in particular, Syria and Iran. These influences, based on dashed alliances, within the preferences of political models, bring back the idea of ??political ex-communication as in the 1054 schism between East and West.

Even the devil uses sacred verses for his own interests, Shakespeare said. If we refer to Guner, state leaders and decision-makers can make sense of realities by assessing foreign policy through their religious perspectives. Religion can affect the way they identify the causes of global or local problems, allies or enemies. But the dynamics of attitudes do not share the same paradigm between them. Studies show that religious affiliation takes its place in political attitudes, especially in political theologies. This is especially true when a particular religious community is in favor of war or peace. But, it is also reflected in the selection of alliances of parties to conflicts. According to statistics, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in most cases, when states intervene on behalf of endangered ethnic minorities, in over 80% of cases they intervene with those minorities with whom they share the same religious affiliation, but the case of NATO intervention in Kosovo broke the inherited taboo, if we refer to the religious affiliation of the oppressed minority. If we add to this data the Arab Spring, we clearly see the minimization of access as never before. Unlike Russia, where the instrumentalization of religion is a reciprocal political-religious action, in the West, it remains confined to the political lexicon. Religious authorities there do not religiously legitimize political ventures. Pope Francis is one of the most critical voices of many Western policies, especially during the Arab Spring.

Religious affiliation in Russia is almost equated with national identity. So, naturally their interference in politics becomes inevitable. Russia is the typical example where religious and state actors line up in the same political trenches. The Kremlin tries to keep other peoples, mainly Orthodox, in its political orbit through its official religion. The Ukraine-Russia political-military conflict was preceded by a religious one with a geopolitical background. The Putin regime intends for the Moscow Patriarchate to maintain its influence in the former Soviet Union, in order to support its policies in the region. After the recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Istanbul Patriarchate in 2019, he called a meeting of the State Security Council and declared that autocephaly aims to "divide the peoples of Russia and Ukraine", while Lavrov went further when he stated that the secession of the KO of the Ukrainian Patriarchate of Moscow is being done with the open support of Washington. In support of these policies, during the invasion of Crimea in 2014, the clergy of the wing of the Moscow Patriarchate, did not perform the funeral services of Ukrainian soldiers fallen in the war against Russian forces. Russian aggression against Ukraine these days bombed Kharkiv Cathedral to tell the Orthodox there that thier beacon is Moscow.

The only country outside the Russian Federation that strongly supports any action by the Kremlin is Serbia. With the same strategy (of Greater Serbia), Belgrade, through the Serbian church, seeks to maintain control over the territories of the former Yugoslavia. The OC of Serbia does not recognize the OC of Montenegro and the one of North Macedonia. The pro-Russian protests in Belgrade are the enthusiasm of Serbia's readiness to ignite conflicts in the Balkans as soon as the opportunity arises. While her vote in the UN in favor of condemning Russian aggression, unaccompanied by sanctions imposed by the EU and the US, seduces only the delusional myopics of the Open Balkans.

In the Ukraine war, Putin seeks to create a front of anti-Western allies, and is viciously trying to toss out the idea of ??an Orthodox-Islamic alliance, initially with the Chechens present. The participation of the Chechens in the aggression against Ukraine, as a tribute to Kadyrov's coming to power in Chechnya with Putin's direct support, deserves no appreciation other than Voltaire's statement "war is fought by heroes, masquerades lead and profiteers benefit". But the commitment of Hezbollah fighters behind Iran, the readiness of Syria's Bashar al-Assad's military, serves Putin's insidious idea of ??an orthodox-Islamic alliance against the West, through the instrumentalization of a millennial prophecy. Its essence is based on the misinterpretation of a hadith according to which, a great war where Muslims and Christians will unite against a common enemy, will take place before the end of the world. But the fact that this alliance, religiously defined within the family of Abrahamic faiths, is confronted with a religiously undefined adversary, does not mean Ukraine, nor the West, but an adversary outside the Abrahamic faiths. Muslims will not side with Putin, but with Ukraine referring to the universal principle of law, though they rightly ask; why did the West not react like this to Syria, Libya, Palestine, Myanmar, Bosnia….? This is exactly the threshold that the West must cross in order not to produce other Putins.