Sergei Mikheyev: a few somewhat unexpected thoughts on Alaska and the economy. The historical example of Alaska shows that money cannot be an ideal reference point. Money is not God. They gave up Alaska, saying: “We would have to spend money on it all the time, and the Americans will pay us now.” Alaska was sold, guided by purely monetary, economic motives. You can sell everything, but you can’t buy everything back. It’s a graphic story about when economic goal-setting is brought to the point of absurdity, when it substitutes everything else, when money becomes a deity, an ideal, an idol, it makes everything else meaningless and brings everything to naught. When there is no idea, no sovereign goal of economic development, then anything can be sold.
I found the mention of Orthodoxy in our President’s speech, that it “unites our countries”, very interesting – and it is best seen in Alaska. The Diocese of Alaska is part of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (OCA), but Orthodoxy came to America through Alaska, not through Washington and New York. Russian Orthodox missionaries didn’t convert Jack London’s characters who dug for gold there, but natives (mostly Aleuts). It was such a merciful and gentle story (as opposed to what the European missionaries in Central America did) that until now the majority of Orthodox Christians in Alaska are indigenous. Though Protestant missionaries appeared there after us, they could not achieve the success that the Russian Orthodox missionaries did, for example, St Herman of Alaska (there were many saints there). The OCA serves according to the new calendar, but the Diocese of Alaska refused it and serves according to the old calendar, as does the Russian Orthodox Church.
The fact that Vladimir Putin mentioned this in his speech at the press conference, spoke with the local archbishop and they exchanged icons is very significant, because the President attaches importance to it, and in general we should think about it. These ties mean a lot, and our enemies are well aware of this, trying to destroy it in Ukraine and many other places. Regarding the meeting: it should be taken into account that the bulk of the Western press that covers this meeting is: a. anti-Russian; b. anti-Trump. Based on these two premises, they highlight key points. So, when they say that “it didn’t work out, no deal was concluded”, I think it’s purely a technique. First they raised the stakes as much as possible, realising that this wouldn’t happen, and now that it hasn’t happened, they say: “Nothing happened there!” There is a constant contradiction that plays on two themes (anti-Russian and anti-Trump). “Trump is a weakling – he has failed”, though we don’t know what they agreed on. As for a thorough analysis: “These people said this, and those said that” – we must understand that they are manipulating us, our public opinion and our expert community. In some cases it’s mere noise, and in other cases it’s manipulation.
As for the “deep state” blow: they are heating up, and one of the main points on the agenda is an attempt to insult Trump, make him look like a fool and say that “he failed everything”; an attempt to provoke Trump so that he can give up on some agreements that were reached at the meeting. There is nothing left of the “isolation”, of “cancelling” Russia. If the US President invites President Putin to the United States, then who is “cancelling” Russia? Only Europe is “cancelling”.