Smoke, Mirrors, and Bad Faith: A Response to John Jackson’s “Analysis”
A detailed rebuttal of false claims, selective evidence, and activist framing presented as journalism
Recently, John Jackson published an article titled “Anatomy of Deception: The Influence Operation Behind an Anti-Ukraine Lobbying Blitz on Capitol Hill,” purporting to show that UOJ-USA and the Society of Saint John are a part of some complex “information-laundering [operation meant] to astroturf its way onto MAGA’s centerstage.” For context, John is an American activist based in Kyiv who acts as one of the regime’s many online attack dogs―part of a vast network of Kyiv-funded activists, influencers, and bot farms meant to shape public opinion.
Jonny opens his critique by asserting that “any good assault deploys concealment, deception, and concentrated firepower.” Ironically, his own piece exemplifies precisely those tactics. From start to finish, his argument is constructed in bad faith—built on insinuation, selective omission, and demonstrably false claims. Given that he is a paid advocate of the very state whose actions are under scrutiny, this posture is perhaps unsurprising.
The Myth of “Shell Entities” and Manufactured Suspicion
Jonny alleges the existence of “multiple apparent shell entities with a comprehensive social media presence.” He then reveals that these “entities” are, in fact, two North Carolina-registered LLCs: Union of Orthodox Journalists–America (UOJ-USA) and the Society of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco (SSJ). Both were registered transparently, with public records clearly listing me, Ben Dixon, as founder. My role is stated plainly on the UOJ website and on my public social media profiles.
There is nothing clandestine here. They’re registered as LLC’s because, frankly, we’re broke! It was the lowest cost of entry into the market. While we hope UOJ will eventually be non-profit, that’s not currently in the cards―the irony being that it's far cheaper to run a for-profit entity than a non-profit. The SSJ is already on its way to nonprofit status, however. We recently established a Constitution and Bylaws, elected a Board of Directors, and are working with lawyers who are donating their efforts out of a belief in the mission of the Society of Saint John.
While I may be the founder of these organizations, to try to claim I have “sole control” of them is absurd. The SSJ has a six-person board of directors, and roughly fifty constituent chapters (with membership averaging about 15 people per chapter). To think I have unilateral control over such a project is foolish.
As for the “comprehensive social media presence” Jonny finds so alarming: UOJ, like every news outlet, maintains accounts across major platforms—approximately 13,500 followers on Instagram, 15,000 on Facebook, and 2,700 on X at the time of publication. The Society of Saint John has fewer than 1,000 followers on Facebook, Instagram, and X combined. The branding on both is clear.
If this constitutes a vast, covert influence operation, it is an unusually modest one.
The Cyprus Fiction and the Reality of Independence
Jonny further claims that UOJ-America’s “parent company” flies a Russian flag outside its office in Cyprus. This allegation has already been debunked, with multiple outlets—including major media companies in Bulgaria and Cyprus—having retracted or corrected earlier “reporting” to the same effect.
The actual headquarters of the Team of the Orthodox Journalists (TOJ)—the EU registered legal entity of the original UOJ—isn’t even in the same postal code as the ABC Business Center Jonny references. The address he notes is that of the law office who put together the legal registration—a law office owned and operated by local Cypriots. Being a business center, there are dozens of businesses located there. Is the cafe or bakery on the first floor also a Kremlin operation?
Clearly, Jonny didn’t take the time to actually verify the information he pulled from the “Bulgarian think tank” who initially published the information. I put “think tank” in quotation marks, because it is actually a Facebook based NAFO troll farm called “BG Elves”—yes, really.
More fundamentally, UOJ-America is not a subsidiary of UOJ or Team of the Orthodox Journalists (TOJ). It is independently registered and managed in the United States.
While UOJ-America shares editorial standards, branding elements, and occasionally amplifies reporting from partner outlets overseas, this relationship is best understood as mission-based cooperation—not direct control.
If one insists on an analogy, it resembles a franchise stripped of its usual constraints: we pay no fees of any sort and retain full editorial autonomy over what we cover, how we cover it, and with whom we collaborate.
In practice, UOJ-America has contributed substantially to improving shared editorial rigor—explicitly emphasizing objectivity and standards consistent with the Associated Press. That evolution is why some early critics have since become supporters.
The Fiction of Hidden Identities
Jonny suggests that I somehow concealed my role as founder of both organizations. This claim collapses under even cursory scrutiny. My identity and family are visible across my public profiles. The UOJ website lists leadership roles openly, explicitly mentioning my role in the Society of Saint John and the name of my wife. In meetings where we didn’t personally know the Congressional or Administration official we were meeting, that Catherine and I are married was made clear during introductions. If concealment were the goal, it was executed extraordinarily poorly.
This pattern—asserting secrecy where none exists—repeats throughout Jonny’s piece. It reflects either a lack of basic research or an intentional effort to mislead readers.
Journalism vs. Activism
Jonny accuses UOJ-America of operating a “smurfing” or “Potemkin village” media network, designed to amplify itself deceptively. His evidence amounts to this: UOJ-America reported on a press conference at the U.S. Capitol, then posted it to its official, verified social media accounts. Participants later shared footage of their own remarks.
This is not smurfing. It is standard journalistic practice. The press conference featured three Members of Congress, three Orthodox bishops from different jurisdictions, and multiple civic leaders. It was also covered by other outlets. UOJ-America did not manipulate footage, obscure sources, or coordinate a deceptive amplification campaign. In fact, the individuals who most aggressively amplified the coverage—driving it viral—were Jonny and his associates.
Jonny further alleges that I personally reported on my wife or my own organization while “pretending” to be neutral. In reality, I have not written for UOJ-America in months. As editor-in-chief, I oversee standards and direction, but day-to-day reporting is handled by a news editor and staff reporters. Their coverage of the event was factual, restrained, and notably devoid of praise or editorializing. Jonny’s discomfort appears rooted less in bias than in unfamiliarity with what objective reporting actually looks like.
Anti-War vs. Anti-Persecution
A recurring theme in Jonny’s critique is the conflation of opposition to religious persecution with opposition to Ukraine itself. This reflects a simplistic, binary worldview—what might be called a “Star Wars” framework—in which every conflict must feature a wholly righteous side and an entirely villainous one.
Reality is more complex. Russia is wrong for its invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine is also wrong for persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Both statements can be true simultaneously. At the December 16 press conference and in materials distributed on Capitol Hill, the Society of Saint John explicitly affirmed Ukraine’s right to defend its sovereignty and condemned Russia’s suppression of religious freedom in occupied territories. The Society is not a political organization or lobbying group; it is a national federation of Orthodox parish brotherhoods and sisterhoods from every canonical jurisdiction in the United States. Its mission is spiritual and fraternal, not geopolitical.
What Actually Upset John Jackson
Jonny is not genuinely concerned about corporate registrations or ecclesial relationships. What truly disturbed him—and others aligned with Kyiv’s disinformation apparatus—is that, on December 16, a longstanding monopoly on narrative collapsed.
In meeting after meeting on Capitol Hill, members of Congress were presented with documentation from the United Nations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Mission to the OSCE, and extensive video evidence of church seizures and official rhetoric targeting the UOC.
The response was strikingly consistent: “Why is this the first time we’re hearing about this?”
As Fr. John Whiteford aptly observed, a lie must be repeated endlessly to be believed; the truth often needs to be spoken only once. That truth has now been spoken, and now, several dozen members of Congress are dead set on taking action. That is why the reaction from Kyiv-aligned activists, lobbyists, and commentators was so intense. Ironically, their attempts to brand us as “Russian agents” only broadened the audience for the very information they sought to suppress—thanks guys!
The Absurdity of the “Russian Agent” Claim
What Jonny fails to understand is that my wife (Catherine Whiteford) and I are not unknown figures in American politics. I’m not saying we’re big shots or anything, but we have worked in Republican politics for over a decade, holding leadership roles at local, state, and national levels. Many of the policymakers Jonny and friends are trying to convince that we are Russian agents have known us or our work for years—some attended our wedding.
When Jonny claims that Catherine’s public remarks constitute threats against Ukraine or attempts to undermine its war effort, he relies on distortions easily disproven by watching the videos in question. Her message has been consistent: religious persecution has consequences, and governments that violate fundamental freedoms should not expect unconditional support. Advocating that non-military aid be conditioned on respect for religious liberty aligns with long-standing U.S. policy principles. If, as Jonny insists, Ukraine is not persecuting the UOC, then such conditions should pose no threat at all.
Clergy, Chaplaincy, and Equal Treatment
Jonny’s treatment of the issue of clergy conscription further illustrates his dishonesty. He portrays requests for UOC clergy to serve as chaplains—not combatants—as demands for a “special religious exemption.” In reality, clergy from the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and other faiths are permitted to serve as chaplains. Only UOC clergy are categorically barred.
The request is for equal treatment in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, not preferential status.
Law 3894 and Word Games
Finally, Jonny insists that Ukraine’s Law 3894 does not criminalize religion, merely “institutional links” to Russia. This is semantic evasion. The law explicitly bans the religious activities of the UOC, using allegations of foreign affiliation as justification. Banning religious activity is persecution, regardless of whether the statute itself includes prison sentences. Ukrainian authorities are already using Law 3894 as the basis for legal actions aimed at dissolving the Kyiv Metropolia.
Even Viktor Yelensky, head of Ukraine’s State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, has described the government’s campaign as a “full-scale crackdown” on the UOC. Comparing Law 3894 to U.S. regulation of social media platforms, as Jonny does, trivializes the reality that a church is not an app—and faith is not a commodity.
The Fiction of “ROCOR Control” and Guilt by Association
Jonny further alleges that the Society of Saint John is secretly linked to the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) because Gregory Levitsky, a subdeacon of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), participated in the December delegation and spoke publicly in defense of religious freedom. From this, Jonny asserts that Ms. Whiteford “cannot claim zero connection to the ROC,” because religious figures involved allegedly believe the head of the ROC holds “supreme authority over their purpose in life.”
This argument is fundamentally incoherent and reveals a basic misunderstanding—whether willful or ignorant—of how Orthodox ecclesiology, lay organizations, and civil society function.
First, Patriarch Kirill is not the Pope. He does not hold “supreme authority over [anyone’s] purpose in life.” Governance of the Orthodox Church is conciliar. It is based on the consensus of a council of bishops—never the whims of one man. The patriarch simply presides at councils, and serves as the church’s representative to governments and other local churches.
Sure, he’s afforded a great deal of honor for his position. But his immediate jurisdiction is the Metropolis of Moscow. He could not, for example, show up unannounced to New York and serve in the ROCOR Synodal Cathedral.
Moreover, Orthodoxy doesn’t have a doctrine of Holy War. No Orthodox Christian cares if Patr. Kirill says, “this is a holy war,” because we don’t believe such a thing exists.
Second, the Society of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco is an independent, extra-ecclesial organization, registered in North Carolina by private citizens. It is not an agency, department, or subsidiary of any local Orthodox church. It does not answer to bishops, synods, or patriarchs. It is a civil association of Orthodox Christians, governed by its own bylaws, board, and membership. That is what extra-ecclesial means.
Second, the Society is pan-Orthodox. Membership is open to Orthodox Christians from all canonical jurisdictions in the United States. Its purpose is to serve as a unifying federation of parish-based brotherhoods and sisterhoods, cooperating across jurisdictional lines in charitable, educational, and missionary efforts. Participation by clergy or laymen from a particular jurisdiction does not create institutional control—real or imagined—by that jurisdiction.
Jonny’s logic collapses under even minimal scrutiny. If the presence of a ROCOR subdeacon implies control by the Russian Church, then consistency would require him to conclude that:
-
The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese “controls” the Society, since His Grace, Bishop John Abdallah was the only bishop physically present at both major events.
-
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America “controls” the Society, since a majority of the governing board are GOARCH members.
-
The Orthodox Church in America or the Serbian Orthodox Church “control” the Society, since they represent the largest blocks of parish membership.
These conclusions are plainly absurd. And Jonny would never make them. And why not? Because they don’t support his narrative. They expose the fatal flaw in his premise: representation does not equal control.
Finally, Jonny’s claim that religious individuals cannot advocate for religious freedom unless they disavow their own ecclesial identities is not only illiberal but self-contradictory. The Society’s advocacy concerns the civil rights of believers and institutions under international law. That clergy or churchmen speak publicly on such matters is neither unusual nor improper; it is, in fact, historically normative.
Conclusion
In short, Jonny begins with a conclusion—“this is a Russian operation”—and then retroactively selects facts to support it, discarding all evidence that contradicts his narrative. The result is not analysis, but a strawman; it is conspiracy by association, dressed up as journalism.
Jonny’s article is not serious journalism. It is advocacy masquerading as analysis, built on selective facts, distortions, and a refusal to engage honestly with evidence. In attempting to silence criticism of Ukraine’s religious policies, he has instead helped ensure that those policies receive greater scrutiny.
The truth, once spoken, has a way of standing on its own.
