This article covers it, from the standpoint of the Russian Orthodox Church: "Division in Universal Orthodoxy is a fait accompli" https://spzh.news/en/news/85347-razdelenije-v-mirovom-pravoslavii--svershivshijsya-fakt--ovcs-rpc Sad news.
Over what issue? I read the link but it didn’t really call out any specific problem apart from conciliarly issues.
Two reasons: one systemic, going back a century or so; the other a random flash point that finally ruptured the communion. On the systemic front, over the last 100 years there has grown an internal schism within Orthodoxy, between two camps: the Russians and more broadly the Slavic Orthodox peoples; and the "World Orthodoxy", as seen in Greece, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Alexandria, etc. Broadly speaking, the "world orthodoxy" has been moving towards becoming more liberal. The Patriarch of Constantinople is basically Pope Francis; his encyclicals are all about environmentalism, "the green gospel", etc. I believe it was Alexandria, I could be wrong, that announced they're going to institute women deacons. The Greeks are one of the most notorious liberal EOs in the world. Etc. This is contrasted with the slavic orthodox peoples, who coming out of decades of oppression of atheism, have embraced the most militant form of Orthodoxy possible, and don't really relate to their liberal brethren. Greek orthodoxy, and Russian orthodoxy, while liturgically similar, are doctrinally very different. So this has been brewing for over a century. There were conflicts between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Russian metropolitan way back in like 1909, which were patched up at that time. The specific flash point which brought this to a rupture happened in 2010s. The Patriarch of Constantinople has become best friends with Pope Francis; they echo each other's liberal doctrines, and are promising to effect a merger between Rome and Orthodoxy. To the russians who hate pope francis, this is awful. Then when the Ukrainian conflict started to emerge, the Patriarch asserted authority to invest the Ukrainians as a separate church that didn't need to submit to Russia. Until that point, the Ukrainian church was just the Russian church plants in Ukraine. After he gave them autonomy, they now report directly to him and ignore the Russian church completely. And finally, in 2016, the Patriarch called the "Worldwide Synod" to make some doctrinal definitions for the world orthodoxy. Clever observers noticed liberalism and pretty scary ideas embedded within the proposals. But the Patriarch called the worldwide synod, what are you gonna do? Well the Russians and several others just didn't show. So the Synod came to naught, and those who did attend, went home without any conclusions. Thus there has been an understanding over the last 10-15 years, that the gulf between the two cannot be divided. Things are now getting aggressive: in the Ukrainian war, if Russia ends up conquering Ukraine, they will arrest all "separatist" bishops, and it will return under Russian control. On the flip side, Russia has planted church plants within the lands of the church of Alexandria, a direct shot across the bow.
The situation as it stands now is serious, but in terms of the overall history of Eastern Orthodoxy, a decade or two is meaningless. The Moscow Patriarchate appears to be in the ascendant because of the unprecedented favor being shown it by the current regime. The status quo is quite odd, even for Russia, and more likely than not, will not last. It’s open to serious question just how strong Orthodoxy is within Russia itself. By some estimates, despite nominal affiliation, only about 10% of the population are practicing at all. Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a mere shadow of its pre-WW1 reality, and the current officeholder’s position in global Orthodoxy is incredibly weak. He does not speak for any of the Churches aside from his own, and his many of his pronouncements on current issues are often simply ignored.
It actually goes back even further than that in a lot of ways. Russians consider themselves to be the keeper and protector of the Orthodox Christian faith, and they consider Moscow to be the "third Rome", taking the mantle lost when Constantinople fell. There has always been a tension between the Russian Orthodox and Greek/Eastern Orthodox more generally, and these divisions were exacerbated during the Soviet era which further fractured the Orthodox communion into many Slavic national churches (Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, etc.). One of the keys to understanding Putin, in fact, is to remember that he doesn't want a revival of the USSR; he wants a revival of the empire of Peter the Great (with him as Peter). There is inevitably a religious aspect to his dreams of empire because of this old Russian belief in themselves as the inheritor of Byzantium's mantle.
Tbh, the only way this gets resolved is if either of the two poles of power falls down. Either the Russian Church loses power, which I don't see happening even with a regime change in the Kremlin; or the Ecumenical Patriarchate somehow disappears. Sure he doesn't have a lot of people in his province, but globally the Patriarchate is incredibly influential, and more so now than it was 5 years ago, because places like Alexandria see them as a check against Russian power. Places like Ukraine see them as a check against Russian power. So the Patriarch has found himself in an unexpectedly renewed position of authority, which wasn't there 10 years ago.
Russia's Orthodox church missed an opportunity to do what the Roman church did and separate themselves from the secular ruling power. Back in the early chaotic years after the USSR fell, it would have been possible for the Russian Orthodox Church to reach out and establish itself as a global power in its own right, apart from the nation-state of Russia. But by lashing their wagon to Vladimir Putin's regime, they rise or fall along with him. Yes, the Russian Orthodox Church will go on regardless (in some fashion), but I suspect that if Putin's adventure in Ukraine fails, the power of Patriarch Kirill will likewise diminish and Orthodox eyes will turn back to Constantinople/Istanbul and Greece. The next Russian strongman is unlikely to have the means or opportunity to advance the interests of the Russian Orthodox church on anything more than a rhetorical level. Invictus' point is well-taken too: it's not clear how many Russians actually practice Orthodox Christianity. Much of the attachment is probably cultural and sentimental (much as it is in America, alas).
It bears pointing out that the analogy doesn’t work when it comes to the Church, as Peter the Great sincerely loathed the Orthodox Church. His personal correspondence with the Patriarch (before he abolished the office), left no room for doubt on that score.
True enough. But politicians throughout the ages have proven adept at cloaking themselves in false religious fervor to advance their interests...and clerics just as willing to ally themselves with the blackguards to raise their own profiles. An example of this would be the horrifying and shameful silence -- some even say collusion -- of the Roman Catholic Church in central Europe during World War II, especially the German bishops and cardinals, and Pope Pius XII himself*. *I know that many push back against the idea that Pope Pius XII bears any blame for what happened in WWII, and many insist that he did what he could, individually and corporately as head of the Roman Catholic Church, to help those innocents who came under the shadow of the Nazis and Italian fascists. But the truth remains: Pius XII could have done much more and chose not to.
I do wonder what the gameplan is going to be, going forward. One of the unforeseen consequences of this split is that all the diehard conservative Provinces will be taken out of the equation, whenever the Patriarch of Constantinople considers joining in with Rome. Now a lot of things could still derail that, but my point is that the most fervent voices against that will simply no longer even be in the room anymore. So does that mean that that entire half of the EO will just become submerged under Rome? And then that too will have its own unforeseen consequence, because that half of the EO are all the liberal provinces. So with Pope Francis (who's no liberal slouch himself), with absorbing all the liberal EOs of the world, in one fell swoop, then Roman Catholicism will become worldwide king of liberal Christianity, especially if the liberal EO's bring with them rampant divorce, women deacons, and such.
Another possible consequence of this line of thinking is the existing Uniate jurisdictions could be alienated, since they are modestly culturally different from their EO counterparts and usually the most conservative Catholics around.
The Uniates pose another question. Because if the Ecumenical Patriarch brings in hundreds of millions of EOs with him, that will be functionally like another Uniatism. And yet Pope Francis condemned the Uniate movement, calling it inappropriate for today's age. So ...?