Politics
Alaska: Orthodoxy Caught Up in Geopolitics
September 2, 2025
-
Sergei Chapnin
Senior fellow at the Orthodox Christians Studies Center at Fordham University.
Vladimir Putin’s surprise meeting with Archbishop Alexei of Sitka and Alaska during his recent U.S. visit has stirred deep unease within the Orthodox Church in America. Far from a mere exchange of courtesies, the encounter has been criticized as a carefully staged act of Kremlin propaganda—one that risks compromising the Church’s moral integrity and entangling it in the politics of war.
Vladimir Putin with Archbishop Alexei of Sitka and Alaska during the Russian President’s recent U.S. visit. Source: Kremlin.ru
The world’s attention was riveted on the Putin-Trump meeting in Alaska on August 15. New agreements – what Trump calls a “deal” – were expected from the encounter at Elmendorf-Richardson Air Force Base in Anchorage. But no real breakthrough on the path to peace in Ukraine occurred. The outcome was incredibly discouraging – emptiness. In that emptiness Putin’s personal triumph resounded even more: his political isolation was over. Now he can walk the red carpets of other countries and ride in the same limousine as the US president.
But Putin’s brief visit to the US also acquired an unexpected dimension: a religious one. Alongside his talks with Trump, Putin also met with Archbishop Alexei (Trader) of Sitka and Alaska, a hierarch of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).
Cold calculation and a sleeping conscience
This meeting was no accident or formality. It should be seen as a carefully staged propaganda operation, for which reason the details matter.
The encounter took place in an informal setting, at a cemetery where Soviet pilots from World War II are buried. Judging by video footage, apart from Putin and Archbishop Alexei there was no one else present, except for a dozen officers from the presidential security detail. Everything was arranged so that no outsider could get to the site or plan anything: neither protesters nor journalists knew about it.
Apparently, Archbishop Alexei did not even think to question this unusual format or invite Putin to visit a church, which would have been more natural and traditional. This suggests he had been primed ahead of time to be used for propaganda purposes. I have no doubt he was warned: there will be no questions about the war. And he agreed in advance.
Standing on the green grass, Putin and Archbishop Alexei exchanged gifts. Predictably, they were icons. Yet the exchange looked rather odd. Putin presented the archbishop, calling him “father” (batyushka) rather than “lord” (vladyka), with icons of St Herman of Alaska and the Dormition of the Mother of God, and conveyed “best wishes” from Patriarch Kirill.
It is possible that batyushka was a simple slip of the tongue from someone not very religious and not particularly interested in the Church. But it may also have been a conscious gesture. Vladyka acknowledges the interlocutor’s position of authority. From Putin’s point of view, however, the only vladyka is himself – there should be no alternative vladykas around.
Archbishop Alexei presented Putin with an icon of the same saint, St Herman, but with a very personal connection: it had reportedly been given to him by monks on Mount Athos when he was consecrated as a bishop, and he had prayed before this icon for four years.
This is a striking episode: the archbishop presented the president not with an “abstract” icon from a gift collection, but with something obviously dear to his heart. One sees here both personal affection and great respect. Archbishop Alexei was flattered by the meeting and sincerely admires Putin.
The fact that they gave each other icons of the same saint is a clear blunder by the protocol service, which failed to coordinate the gifts. Perhaps this suggests that preparations were somewhat hasty and overlooked details.
The archbishop then spoke words meant to flatter Putin. He did not speak of Christ or of war and human suffering or call for peace. Instead, he reinforced the narrative dear to Putin’s heart: Russia’s messianic role in bringing the light of Orthodoxy to the world.
“Russia has given us what’s most precious of all, which is the Orthodox faith, and we are forever grateful,” said Archbishop Alexei. He added that he tries to visit Russia every year and that his priests and seminarians feel “at home” there.
This “at home” feeling is not affected by the “prayer for the victory of Holy Rus’,” which openly justifies Russian aggression against Ukraine.
The archbishop did not consider it necessary to tell the Russian president that Russia is now bringing death and suffering to the coreligionist Ukrainian people. I am afraid this shows that the archbishop’s Christian conscience has fallen asleep – and soundly. A shameful spectacle, unworthy of an Orthodox bishop in a free country.
Putin graciously assured him in response that the archbishop is always a welcome guest in Russia. Indeed, anyone willing to remain silent about the war is welcome. After all, there are lots of things to talk about besides the war!
But Putin’s brief visit to the US also acquired an unexpected dimension: a religious one. Alongside his talks with Trump, Putin also met with Archbishop Alexei (Trader) of Sitka and Alaska, a hierarch of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).
Cold calculation and a sleeping conscience
This meeting was no accident or formality. It should be seen as a carefully staged propaganda operation, for which reason the details matter.
The encounter took place in an informal setting, at a cemetery where Soviet pilots from World War II are buried. Judging by video footage, apart from Putin and Archbishop Alexei there was no one else present, except for a dozen officers from the presidential security detail. Everything was arranged so that no outsider could get to the site or plan anything: neither protesters nor journalists knew about it.
Apparently, Archbishop Alexei did not even think to question this unusual format or invite Putin to visit a church, which would have been more natural and traditional. This suggests he had been primed ahead of time to be used for propaganda purposes. I have no doubt he was warned: there will be no questions about the war. And he agreed in advance.
Standing on the green grass, Putin and Archbishop Alexei exchanged gifts. Predictably, they were icons. Yet the exchange looked rather odd. Putin presented the archbishop, calling him “father” (batyushka) rather than “lord” (vladyka), with icons of St Herman of Alaska and the Dormition of the Mother of God, and conveyed “best wishes” from Patriarch Kirill.
It is possible that batyushka was a simple slip of the tongue from someone not very religious and not particularly interested in the Church. But it may also have been a conscious gesture. Vladyka acknowledges the interlocutor’s position of authority. From Putin’s point of view, however, the only vladyka is himself – there should be no alternative vladykas around.
Archbishop Alexei presented Putin with an icon of the same saint, St Herman, but with a very personal connection: it had reportedly been given to him by monks on Mount Athos when he was consecrated as a bishop, and he had prayed before this icon for four years.
This is a striking episode: the archbishop presented the president not with an “abstract” icon from a gift collection, but with something obviously dear to his heart. One sees here both personal affection and great respect. Archbishop Alexei was flattered by the meeting and sincerely admires Putin.
The fact that they gave each other icons of the same saint is a clear blunder by the protocol service, which failed to coordinate the gifts. Perhaps this suggests that preparations were somewhat hasty and overlooked details.
The archbishop then spoke words meant to flatter Putin. He did not speak of Christ or of war and human suffering or call for peace. Instead, he reinforced the narrative dear to Putin’s heart: Russia’s messianic role in bringing the light of Orthodoxy to the world.
“Russia has given us what’s most precious of all, which is the Orthodox faith, and we are forever grateful,” said Archbishop Alexei. He added that he tries to visit Russia every year and that his priests and seminarians feel “at home” there.
This “at home” feeling is not affected by the “prayer for the victory of Holy Rus’,” which openly justifies Russian aggression against Ukraine.
The archbishop did not consider it necessary to tell the Russian president that Russia is now bringing death and suffering to the coreligionist Ukrainian people. I am afraid this shows that the archbishop’s Christian conscience has fallen asleep – and soundly. A shameful spectacle, unworthy of an Orthodox bishop in a free country.
Putin graciously assured him in response that the archbishop is always a welcome guest in Russia. Indeed, anyone willing to remain silent about the war is welcome. After all, there are lots of things to talk about besides the war!
“Archbishop Alexei did not simply meet with a head of state. He met with a war criminal who unleashed Europe’s most destructive war since 1945.”
A man who orders the bombing of Ukrainian cities, the torture of POWs, the kidnapping of children and the persecution of his own citizens for being against the war.
If one is weak and not ready to tell truth to power, it is better to avoid such a meeting. But the desire to be near the “Orthodox dictator” and talk with him tête-à-tête won out. Archbishop Alexei displayed the moral relativism so characteristic of Orthodox hierarchs.
Prayer for peace as cover
It is now clear that Archbishop Alexei had carefully prepared for this meeting, even while keeping it a complete secret. How did he develop confidential channels of communication with the Kremlin? What new acquaintances did he make on his numerous trips to Russia, and how did he manage to prove his loyalty to Putin? For it is obvious the Kremlin would never consider a meeting with a disloyal bishop.
Days before the Trump-Putin summit, Archbishop Alexei announced a week of prayers for peace. Interestingly, his appeal appeared only on the diocesan website. The OCA chancery ignored it and did not republish it. The document is labeled a press release, though it is written in the style of a pastoral letter. One sense haste – it seems to have been written at the last minute.
The “prayer for peace,” expressed in the most general terms and without naming the aggressor in the conflict, provided the perfect religious backdrop for Putin’s political rehabilitation. Icons exchanged, spiritual ties discussed – all of this really helps reinforce Putin’s image as the main guardian of traditional values.
Meeting first with the US president and then with an Orthodox bishop in the US was a symbolic gesture meant to strengthen Putin’s image as a “Christian ruler” whom the world must respect. For those wishing to deceive themselves about Putin, this was another piece of “evidence.”
If one is weak and not ready to tell truth to power, it is better to avoid such a meeting. But the desire to be near the “Orthodox dictator” and talk with him tête-à-tête won out. Archbishop Alexei displayed the moral relativism so characteristic of Orthodox hierarchs.
Prayer for peace as cover
It is now clear that Archbishop Alexei had carefully prepared for this meeting, even while keeping it a complete secret. How did he develop confidential channels of communication with the Kremlin? What new acquaintances did he make on his numerous trips to Russia, and how did he manage to prove his loyalty to Putin? For it is obvious the Kremlin would never consider a meeting with a disloyal bishop.
Days before the Trump-Putin summit, Archbishop Alexei announced a week of prayers for peace. Interestingly, his appeal appeared only on the diocesan website. The OCA chancery ignored it and did not republish it. The document is labeled a press release, though it is written in the style of a pastoral letter. One sense haste – it seems to have been written at the last minute.
The “prayer for peace,” expressed in the most general terms and without naming the aggressor in the conflict, provided the perfect religious backdrop for Putin’s political rehabilitation. Icons exchanged, spiritual ties discussed – all of this really helps reinforce Putin’s image as the main guardian of traditional values.
Meeting first with the US president and then with an Orthodox bishop in the US was a symbolic gesture meant to strengthen Putin’s image as a “Christian ruler” whom the world must respect. For those wishing to deceive themselves about Putin, this was another piece of “evidence.”
Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA. Source: Wiki Commons
The metropolitan who did not come
The head of the OCA, Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), chose to avoid taking part in this performance, even though on that day he was in San Francisco, not far from Alaska.
Metropolitan Tikhon’s absence was also a political gesture. It would have been more natural for the Russian president to meet not with a diocesan bishop but with the head of the local Church. It is unlikely that Metropolitan Tikhon would have been able to get out of such a meeting if Moscow had proposed it. But a different path was taken.
It is not hard to imagine what would have happened if Putin had met with Metropolitan Tikhon. Photos of the OCA primate alongside a war criminal would have exploded across all Kremlin propaganda channels in Russia and far beyond. The meeting would have been presented as proof that “the entire Orthodox world” supports Russia. The reputational losses for American Orthodoxy would have been catastrophic.
It is no wonder Metropolitan Tikhon chose the path of Pontius Pilate – he washed his hands of it. He did not openly support the meeting between Archbishop Alexei and Putin, but neither did he condemn it. He remained silent. He allowed the archbishop to play this dubious role, preserving for himself the ability to say later: “no, I was not there, it was all the initiative of the local bishop.” Yet given the centralized structure of the OCA, one can safely assume that without the direct blessing of Metropolitan Tikhon, Archbishop Alexei simply would not have dared to do what he did.
The price of silence
Two months ago, I appealed to the All-American Council, called the highest authority within the OCA, to express solidarity with Russian priests and laypeople persecuted in Russia for their antiwar stance. The council ignored our letter, even though it was signed by hundreds of members of the OCA and of other local churches.
The meeting in Anchorage is another resounding slap in the face to persecuted Christians. Whereas the refusal to consider the open letter at the council could be attributed to procedural restrictions and seen as an accident, the meeting in Alaska clearly indicates a trend.
Archbishop Alexei smiles as he presents Putin with an icon from his prayer corner at a time when Russian priests are being defrocked by Church authorities and forced into exile for praying for peace.
This selective blindness is not accidental. The OCA received autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970, a decision still not recognized by Constantinople. A small jurisdiction with disputed legitimacy is especially vulnerable to pressure both from the “mother Church,” which serves the Putin regime, and from the Kremlin itself.
It could be the case that the poor Alaskan diocese has been promised some reward for participating in these political games.
The head of the OCA, Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), chose to avoid taking part in this performance, even though on that day he was in San Francisco, not far from Alaska.
Metropolitan Tikhon’s absence was also a political gesture. It would have been more natural for the Russian president to meet not with a diocesan bishop but with the head of the local Church. It is unlikely that Metropolitan Tikhon would have been able to get out of such a meeting if Moscow had proposed it. But a different path was taken.
It is not hard to imagine what would have happened if Putin had met with Metropolitan Tikhon. Photos of the OCA primate alongside a war criminal would have exploded across all Kremlin propaganda channels in Russia and far beyond. The meeting would have been presented as proof that “the entire Orthodox world” supports Russia. The reputational losses for American Orthodoxy would have been catastrophic.
It is no wonder Metropolitan Tikhon chose the path of Pontius Pilate – he washed his hands of it. He did not openly support the meeting between Archbishop Alexei and Putin, but neither did he condemn it. He remained silent. He allowed the archbishop to play this dubious role, preserving for himself the ability to say later: “no, I was not there, it was all the initiative of the local bishop.” Yet given the centralized structure of the OCA, one can safely assume that without the direct blessing of Metropolitan Tikhon, Archbishop Alexei simply would not have dared to do what he did.
The price of silence
Two months ago, I appealed to the All-American Council, called the highest authority within the OCA, to express solidarity with Russian priests and laypeople persecuted in Russia for their antiwar stance. The council ignored our letter, even though it was signed by hundreds of members of the OCA and of other local churches.
The meeting in Anchorage is another resounding slap in the face to persecuted Christians. Whereas the refusal to consider the open letter at the council could be attributed to procedural restrictions and seen as an accident, the meeting in Alaska clearly indicates a trend.
Archbishop Alexei smiles as he presents Putin with an icon from his prayer corner at a time when Russian priests are being defrocked by Church authorities and forced into exile for praying for peace.
This selective blindness is not accidental. The OCA received autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970, a decision still not recognized by Constantinople. A small jurisdiction with disputed legitimacy is especially vulnerable to pressure both from the “mother Church,” which serves the Putin regime, and from the Kremlin itself.
It could be the case that the poor Alaskan diocese has been promised some reward for participating in these political games.
St. Nicholas Cathedral (Washington, D.C.). Source: Wiki Commons
Split within
I am far from suggesting that there could be a schism in the OCA episcopate. In one way or another, almost all bishops sympathize with Russia. But the same can hardly be said of the priests and laity. Many were shocked by this meeting. Will their voices be heard loudly and clearly? Will the OCA episcopate listen?
Today, this remains an open question. The OCA has had no lay movement for a long time. There is no core around which priests and laity could rally. But the fact that such a movement does not exist today does not mean it will not emerge tomorrow.
Autocephaly – complete independence from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state, even if not universally recognized – is a value that must be constantly defended. Awareness of this is growing.
Especially now, when once again we see spectacles with those ready to pay any price for an illusory closeness to Russian power, secular or ecclesiastical.
What’s next?
The meeting in Alaska is not an end but a beginning. Putin got what he wanted: an unconditional public blessing from an Orthodox hierarch in the US.
For the OCA, however, the consequences could be devastating: a deepening conflict with members of the Church who identify with the Ukrainian diaspora in the US, as well as worsening relations with Christian churches that have clearly and unequivocally condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
The destruction may give rise to renewal. Many members of the Church – not only the young, but people of all ages – were shocked by Alaska. Is it not time to unite and pose a direct question to Metropolitan Tikhon: why are we discrediting our Church in this way?
Did Archbishop Alexei meet with Putin with the Synod’s blessing? If so, then the Synod is complicit in this disgrace, which amounts to moral bankruptcy. If not, meaning this was the archbishop’s personal decision, then he must bear canonical responsibility for actions that could tar the entire Church.
Time to choose
The OCA is faced with a choice. It can continue hypocritically playing political games while claiming the opposite – that there is no place for politics in religion and that it will not condemn Russia’s aggression in the war. Or the Church can finally remember why it exists: to bear witness to the truth, to defend the persecuted, to support the homeless, to be the voice of the voiceless.
Archbishop Alexei has made his choice, openly siding with the aggressor. Metropolitan Tikhon tries to remain on the sidelines. But history knows no neutrality in the face of evil. Sooner or later, the choice must be made: with Christ or with Caesar? With the persecuted or with the persecutors? With truth or with power?
Time flies. With each day, with each new gesture toward the Kremlin, the chances of preserving the OCA’s dignity grow smaller.
Small churches like the OCA often believe their choices do not matter in larger games. They are wrong. It is the choices of the small that reveal the true face of Christianity. For the small have only one thing – their conscience and their faith. And when they sell them, they have nothing left to offer the world.
I am far from suggesting that there could be a schism in the OCA episcopate. In one way or another, almost all bishops sympathize with Russia. But the same can hardly be said of the priests and laity. Many were shocked by this meeting. Will their voices be heard loudly and clearly? Will the OCA episcopate listen?
Today, this remains an open question. The OCA has had no lay movement for a long time. There is no core around which priests and laity could rally. But the fact that such a movement does not exist today does not mean it will not emerge tomorrow.
Autocephaly – complete independence from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state, even if not universally recognized – is a value that must be constantly defended. Awareness of this is growing.
Especially now, when once again we see spectacles with those ready to pay any price for an illusory closeness to Russian power, secular or ecclesiastical.
What’s next?
The meeting in Alaska is not an end but a beginning. Putin got what he wanted: an unconditional public blessing from an Orthodox hierarch in the US.
For the OCA, however, the consequences could be devastating: a deepening conflict with members of the Church who identify with the Ukrainian diaspora in the US, as well as worsening relations with Christian churches that have clearly and unequivocally condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
The destruction may give rise to renewal. Many members of the Church – not only the young, but people of all ages – were shocked by Alaska. Is it not time to unite and pose a direct question to Metropolitan Tikhon: why are we discrediting our Church in this way?
Did Archbishop Alexei meet with Putin with the Synod’s blessing? If so, then the Synod is complicit in this disgrace, which amounts to moral bankruptcy. If not, meaning this was the archbishop’s personal decision, then he must bear canonical responsibility for actions that could tar the entire Church.
Time to choose
The OCA is faced with a choice. It can continue hypocritically playing political games while claiming the opposite – that there is no place for politics in religion and that it will not condemn Russia’s aggression in the war. Or the Church can finally remember why it exists: to bear witness to the truth, to defend the persecuted, to support the homeless, to be the voice of the voiceless.
Archbishop Alexei has made his choice, openly siding with the aggressor. Metropolitan Tikhon tries to remain on the sidelines. But history knows no neutrality in the face of evil. Sooner or later, the choice must be made: with Christ or with Caesar? With the persecuted or with the persecutors? With truth or with power?
Time flies. With each day, with each new gesture toward the Kremlin, the chances of preserving the OCA’s dignity grow smaller.
Small churches like the OCA often believe their choices do not matter in larger games. They are wrong. It is the choices of the small that reveal the true face of Christianity. For the small have only one thing – their conscience and their faith. And when they sell them, they have nothing left to offer the world.
Share this article
Read More
