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 profoundly discouraging: emptiness. In that emptiness, Putin's personal triumph resounded even more clearly: his political isolation was over. Now he can walk the red carpets of other countries and ride in the same limousine as the U.S. president.
But Putin's brief visit to the U.S. also acquired an unexpected dimension: a religious one. Alongside his talks with Trump, Putin 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 orchestrated 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, no one else was present except for a dozen officers from the presidential security detail. Everything was arranged so that no outsider could reach the site or plan anything: neither protesters nor journalists knew about it.
Apparently, Archbishop Alexei did not even consider questioning this unusual format or inviting Putin to visit a church, which would have been more natural and traditional. This suggests he had been briefed ahead of time about his role in this propaganda exercise. 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 holy icons. Yet the exchange appeared rather odd. Putin presented the archbishop, calling him "father" (batyushka, meaning priest) rather than "master" (vladyka, meaning bishop), with icons of St. Herman of Alaska and the Dormition of the Mother of God, and conveyed "best wishes" from Patriarch Kirill (in Russian, Putin mistakenly said Patriarch Alexei, but the interpreter corrected it to Kirill).
It is possible that batyushka was just another simple slip of the tongue from someone not particularly religious or interested in the Church. But it may also have been a conscious gesture. Vladyka acknowledges the interlocutor's position of authority. From Putin's perspective, 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 deeply personal connection: he told Putin that this was a very special one that had been given to him by monks on Mount Athos when they learned he would be 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 a standard commercial icon from a gift collection, but with something obviously dear to his heart. One sees here both personal affection and profound respect. Archbishop Alexei was flattered by the meeting and sincerely admires Putin.
The fact that they gave each other icons of the same saint reveals a clear blunder by the protocol service, which failed to coordinate the gifts. Perhaps this suggests that preparations were somewhat hasty and overlooked crucial 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 remains unaffected by the "prayer for the victory of Holy Rus'," which liturgically supports Russian aggression against Ukraine. This prayer, composed after the beginning of the war, is now recited after every liturgy in many Russian churches. The archbishop is not troubled by participating in it.
The archbishop did not consider it necessary to tell the Russian president that Russia is now bringing death and suffering to Ukrainian people. I am afraid this demonstrates 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 plenty of things to discuss besides the war!
But Putin's brief visit to the U.S. also acquired an unexpected dimension: a religious one. Alongside his talks with Trump, Putin 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 orchestrated 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, no one else was present except for a dozen officers from the presidential security detail. Everything was arranged so that no outsider could reach the site or plan anything: neither protesters nor journalists knew about it.
Apparently, Archbishop Alexei did not even consider questioning this unusual format or inviting Putin to visit a church, which would have been more natural and traditional. This suggests he had been briefed ahead of time about his role in this propaganda exercise. 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 holy icons. Yet the exchange appeared rather odd. Putin presented the archbishop, calling him "father" (batyushka, meaning priest) rather than "master" (vladyka, meaning bishop), with icons of St. Herman of Alaska and the Dormition of the Mother of God, and conveyed "best wishes" from Patriarch Kirill (in Russian, Putin mistakenly said Patriarch Alexei, but the interpreter corrected it to Kirill).
It is possible that batyushka was just another simple slip of the tongue from someone not particularly religious or interested in the Church. But it may also have been a conscious gesture. Vladyka acknowledges the interlocutor's position of authority. From Putin's perspective, 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 deeply personal connection: he told Putin that this was a very special one that had been given to him by monks on Mount Athos when they learned he would be 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 a standard commercial icon from a gift collection, but with something obviously dear to his heart. One sees here both personal affection and profound respect. Archbishop Alexei was flattered by the meeting and sincerely admires Putin.
The fact that they gave each other icons of the same saint reveals a clear blunder by the protocol service, which failed to coordinate the gifts. Perhaps this suggests that preparations were somewhat hasty and overlooked crucial 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 remains unaffected by the "prayer for the victory of Holy Rus'," which liturgically supports Russian aggression against Ukraine. This prayer, composed after the beginning of the war, is now recited after every liturgy in many Russian churches. The archbishop is not troubled by participating in it.
The archbishop did not consider it necessary to tell the Russian president that Russia is now bringing death and suffering to Ukrainian people. I am afraid this demonstrates 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 plenty of things to discuss besides the war!
“Let's be clear: 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 brutal persecution of his own citizens for opposing 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 prevailed. Archbishop Alexei displayed the moral relativism so characteristic of Orthodox hierarchs, not only in Russia.
Prayer for Peace as Cover
It is now clear that Archbishop Alexei had carefully prepared for this meeting, even while keeping it completely secret. How did he develop confidential channels of communication with the Kremlin? What new acquaintances did he make on his numerous trips to Russia in recent years, and how did he manage to prove his loyalty to Putin? For it is obvious the Kremlin would never consider 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 as a press release, though it is written in the style of a pastoral letter. One senses 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 effectively reinforces Putin's image as the principal guardian of traditional values in the modern world. A perfect match for Russian propaganda.
Meeting first with the U.S. president and then with an Orthodox bishop in the U.S. 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 prevailed. Archbishop Alexei displayed the moral relativism so characteristic of Orthodox hierarchs, not only in Russia.
Prayer for Peace as Cover
It is now clear that Archbishop Alexei had carefully prepared for this meeting, even while keeping it completely secret. How did he develop confidential channels of communication with the Kremlin? What new acquaintances did he make on his numerous trips to Russia in recent years, and how did he manage to prove his loyalty to Putin? For it is obvious the Kremlin would never consider 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 as a press release, though it is written in the style of a pastoral letter. One senses 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 effectively reinforces Putin's image as the principal guardian of traditional values in the modern world. A perfect match for Russian propaganda.
Meeting first with the U.S. president and then with an Orthodox bishop in the U.S. 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 primate of the OCA, Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), chose to avoid participating in this performance, even though on that day he was in San Francisco, not far from Alaska.
Shall we consider Metropolitan Tikhon's absence as a political gesture too? It would have been more natural for the Russian president to meet not with a diocesan bishop but with the primate of the local Church. It is unlikely that Metropolitan Tikhon would have been able to decline 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 both before the meeting and after it for at least a week, and then made only a short comment that he was totally unaware of it. Nothing more. 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 or at least consultations with Metropolitan Tikhon, Archbishop Alexei simply would not have dared to do what he did.
The Price of Silence
Three 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 open letter for technical reasons (submitted too late), 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 seen as an accident, the meeting in Alaska clearly indicates a disturbing 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 and some other local Churches. 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 that the poor Alaskan diocese has been promised some reward for participating in these political games.
The primate of the OCA, Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), chose to avoid participating in this performance, even though on that day he was in San Francisco, not far from Alaska.
Shall we consider Metropolitan Tikhon's absence as a political gesture too? It would have been more natural for the Russian president to meet not with a diocesan bishop but with the primate of the local Church. It is unlikely that Metropolitan Tikhon would have been able to decline 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 both before the meeting and after it for at least a week, and then made only a short comment that he was totally unaware of it. Nothing more. 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 or at least consultations with Metropolitan Tikhon, Archbishop Alexei simply would not have dared to do what he did.
The Price of Silence
Three 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 open letter for technical reasons (submitted too late), 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 seen as an accident, the meeting in Alaska clearly indicates a disturbing 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 and some other local Churches. 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 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
Division Within
I am far from suggesting that there could be a schism in the OCA episcopate. In one way or another, quite a few OCA 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 loud and clear? Will the OCA episcopate listen to this critique? Will the Synod react?
Today, this remains an open question. The OCA has had no significant 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 witness 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 U.S.
For the OCA, however, the consequences could be devastating: a deepening conflict with members of the Church who are against the war, especially those who identify with the Ukrainian diaspora in the U.S., 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 the Alaska meeting. Is it not time to unite and pose a direct question to Metropolitan Tikhon: Why is the bishop discrediting our Church in this way?
Official Reaction
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 initiative, then he must bear canonical responsibility for actions that could tarnish the entire Church. Did Archbishop Alexei realize that many found the scene in Anchorage deeply unsettling?
These questions disturb not only clergy and lay people. A week after the meeting, Archbishop Alexei wrote a Statement of Apology, and it was published on the official website of the OCA. And not just published—a clarification from Metropolitan Tikhon was added. In this clarification, the primate of the Church officially states that this initiative "was not authorized by the Holy Synod" and was arranged without his knowledge.
Though in his statement Alexei asks for forgiveness twice, in fact he fails to explain how he himself understands his failure. Between the lines, one can read that this repentance is not honest. It was a political gesture and was most probably written not freely but under certain pressure from Metropolitan Tikhon.
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, quite a few OCA 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 loud and clear? Will the OCA episcopate listen to this critique? Will the Synod react?
Today, this remains an open question. The OCA has had no significant 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 witness 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 U.S.
For the OCA, however, the consequences could be devastating: a deepening conflict with members of the Church who are against the war, especially those who identify with the Ukrainian diaspora in the U.S., 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 the Alaska meeting. Is it not time to unite and pose a direct question to Metropolitan Tikhon: Why is the bishop discrediting our Church in this way?
Official Reaction
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 initiative, then he must bear canonical responsibility for actions that could tarnish the entire Church. Did Archbishop Alexei realize that many found the scene in Anchorage deeply unsettling?
These questions disturb not only clergy and lay people. A week after the meeting, Archbishop Alexei wrote a Statement of Apology, and it was published on the official website of the OCA. And not just published—a clarification from Metropolitan Tikhon was added. In this clarification, the primate of the Church officially states that this initiative "was not authorized by the Holy Synod" and was arranged without his knowledge.
Though in his statement Alexei asks for forgiveness twice, in fact he fails to explain how he himself understands his failure. Between the lines, one can read that this repentance is not honest. It was a political gesture and was most probably written not freely but under certain pressure from Metropolitan Tikhon.
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
