As I understand it, the patriarch is elected by a council of Orthodox, and afterwards the Turks can agree with or veto the decision. The muslim governments are not the highest power because there were times when the EO Patriarch went into exile away from the Muslim governments, eg in Jerusalem. Were the Muslim government the highest authority, they could choose to abolish the Patriarch or patriarchate, but they cannot do this. The EOS agree that the patriarch of Constantinople is considered first among equals. He does not have authority to nullify the internal decisions of the other EO churches. Even if you were right, you would be confusing practice with doctrine to say one only needs to look at history books to see what the church teaches. That is kind of like saying that Henry Viii called himself the head of the church or the black rubric in history opposed the real presence so that is the Anglican position. But anyway, like I said, I would be interested in seeing any EOS who taught that under the tsar the patriarch was not the highest person in the church. I am extremely skeptical that this was actually their formal doctrine as you say. Feel free to let me know what EO writers say that the patriarch should not be the highest authority in the church and that Putin should be.