The UGCC calling itself the "Kyivan Patriarchate" and abandoning it mother church that it had seized out west and establishing a beachhead in Kiev, isn't the status quo, and I don't know of Met. Volodymyr accepting it. What is the UGCC up to? "Give him an inch, and he will take a mile." That's a pithy saying too.
The first 16 primates of the UGCC were Metropolitans of Kyiv.
No, its first primate Michael Rahoza, by entering schism and adopting heresy, lost title to the see of Kiev. Ironic, as he had been given the title by EP Jeremias II, who had just received jurisdiction over Kiev from the episcopal line of Kiev which had been just then elevated to Patriarch. He had one successor, Ipotii Potii, who barely was in Kiev if at all. With the consecration of the illegal but canonical hiearchy, including the Metropolitan of Kiev Job Beretsky, Met. Ipotii's successor Joseph Rutsky retreated to Vilnius, and the "Metropolitans of Kyiv" of the UGCC became quaint bishopls like the Latin Patriarchs that the Vatican appointed for Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem but who never left Rome.
There wasn't much of Kiev in 1596: her restorer, Met. St. Peter Movila, himself was consecrated in L'viv, whose bishops had remained faithful to their vows to uphold Orthodoxy in union with the Four Patriarchs of the Catholic Church in the East. She has remained vigorous and strong over all Ukraine since then.
The Cossacks and religion in early modern Ukraine By Serhii Plokhyhttp://books.google.com/books?id=NCzzxNisc1MC&pg=PA264&dq=Yov+Boretsky+Ukraine+Mohyla&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Rutsky&f=false
From 1808 to 1838 there were two metropolitans one in Kyiv and one in Lviv.
That happened because for nearly a century, the "united" metropolitanate of Kiev not existing in reality, was just added as a title to the bishop of L'vov/Lemberg. The seperate metropolitanate of Kiev came about because the Czar appointed Irakly Lisovsky as primate of the UGCC, and the Vatican refused to recognize him, recognizing only the bishop of Lemberg, which now lay in Austrian territory and therefore loyal to the Vatican.
Only with the liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church in the Russian Empire in 1838 did the UGCC See in Kyiv cease to operate.
The coup de grace:Caesar gave, and Caesar took away, just as the Kaiser took away across the border. The Vatican had no following there and the Czar no more interest in the Vatican's ambassador (which is what role Met. Iraky performed). Btw, the UGCC "see of Kiev" had ceased to exist off of paper in 1796.
Lviv remains an Archeparchy.
and the real center of the UGCC.
The Archeparchy of Kyiv counts 240,000 faithul and 51 parishes. As the captial of Ukraine it makes perfect sense for the primate to move his See there,
only if, rather than ministering to his "native" flock, he is attempting to establish a beachhead to stage a coup against the canonical primate of All Ukraine. It makes perfect sense to take appropriate measures accordingly.
kinda like that Romanian Orthodox bishop setting up his See in Rome.
No, to the Romanians, all Italy is the same: the see was originally in Lucca. Kiev has never been the home of the UGCC
Let us remember that until the very last minute the Pope postponed the publication of his two "apostolic messages"—one an appeal to Orthodox Russians, the other addressed to uniate Ukrainians. This left all of the Pope's options open to change their contents in case at the last minute, against all the evidence to the contrary, there was a change in position by the Moscow Patriarchate.  All the same, these hopes were not realized and on March 22, 1988 John Paul II published his encyclical on the occasion of the Baptism of Rus: Euntes In Mundus (Go Out to All the World). Reliable sources say that it had been edited at the end of 1987 and was signed on the 15th of January. In other words it was lying in the "out box" for a whole three months. The message expounded in part, with strained reserve, on that which has been said, written, and repeated many times, i.e. the reason why the Roman Church cannot stay on the sidelines during this great event. The Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Great Prince Vladimir baptized the Russian nation in the streams of the Dnieper in 988. This happened, the Pope assures us, and those of like mind with him, before the division of the Churches, that is before the failing away of the West from the Church in 1054.http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/vatican_russia.aspx
On the one hand one might question whom the Vatican hopes to deceive with such trickery, but on the other one can observe here the [ultimate] limits of western formalistic reasoning. Even if we allow Nestor, the chronicler of the Russian land, some poetic license in his embellishments when describing the choosing of a religion by the emissaries of St Vladimir, who can seriously deny that the Russian pagans, through the personage of their prince, chose Byzantine Christianity although they had the possibility of choosing any of the existing religions including any one of the various paths within Christianity. Thus, they in principle deliberately rejected Roman Christianity. The Roman Church had fallen away from ancient Christianity, preserved in Orthodoxy, long before 1054, a date which is simply used for convenience but is in fact actually insignificant. John Paul II was already repeating the point he had stretched in his encyclical of July 2, 1985, Slavorum Apostoli (Apostles to the Slavs), that the apostolic mission of the Brother-Saints Cyril and Methodius was allegedly conducted under the omophorion of both Constantinople and Rome. From this, the Pope draws the direct conclusion that all Slavs, and among them Russians, remain indebted to the Roman Church. This is why the head of the Roman Church considers it his sacred duty to be a benefactor to Russians and other Slavs!
Btw, the Greeks have their Metropolitan in Venice, as they have had long and continuous links there. Next it would make more sense to have a center for them in Magna Graeca in Southern Italy, where they were the majority before being exterminated by the Latins. Though it would make sense for the Episcopal Assembly to be based in Rome, to restore it to Orthodoxy and to union with the Four Patriarchs of the Catholic Church in the East.
And since Ukraine is a free country
that does not make it a "free-for-all."
the UGCC can and should be able to go anywhere,
it never ceases to amaze and amuse how from your supreme pontiff down the Vatican through the one side of its mouth says such things, and then at the same time can from the otherside of its mouth or another orifice, bemoan and bewail the fall of its monopoly in Latin America, and call for action to restore its sole grip there.
there are plenty of atheists around to evangelize.
in West Ukraine, I'm sure there are, and more the further in Slovkia and the Czech Lands. Which makes the focus eastwards of your patriarch wanna be of All Ukraine and the Vatican all the more transparent.
After a half-century of silence by the Vatican concerning Uniatism, the unexpected twist of John Paul II to suddenly bring us back to the dark militant epoch of Pius XI, should make us recall the high flown words of Pope Urban VIII, uttered just under four centuries ago in the first years of the forced propagation of Uniatism. "Oh my Rusiny! Through you I hope to obtain the East." http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/vatican_russia.aspx