Yeah I'm not an advocate of Russian messianism, either. I'm fed up with Orthodox ethnocentrism/phyletism in all its forms.
At least as regards the folks who are NOT under the schismatics in Kiev, the issue is not ethnocentrism/phyletism, but about ecclesiology, particularly around the following issues mainly involving Constantinople:
1. The vestiges of the Ottoman milet system, which are outside of Orthodox canon law
2. The prerogatives Constantinople has taken to itself since the 1920s, which involve a re-interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, among other things & Constantinople's failure to act according to its traditional prerogatives as regards the Antioch-Jerusalem schism & more
3. The historical revisionism of Constantinople - even as regards the present Ecumenical Patriarch reversing his own positions
4. The structure of how the Ecumenical Patriarch is governed internally and the question of all its global affiliates
5. Orthodox ecclesiology regarding the boundaries, essence, and mission of the Church versus Constantinople's century of ecumenism (which has infected every other Local Church to some degree)
6. The Crete council disaster, which failed because Constantinople did not help to heal the already-existing schisms and pushed agendas antithetical to Orthodox ecclesiological dogma - and which council the present Ecumenical Patriarch regarded as his personal legacy, for the thwarting of which he now wants some kind of vengeance
The problem is that not every Local Church independent of Constantinople is either prepared or desirous to discuss the above issues because that would mean addressing their own departures from tradition (like Romania's strange ethnic ecclesiology) or Antioch's or Moscow's involvement in ecumenism, or the unilateral granting of autocephaly to the OCA.
Added to this, and perhaps driving this, is Constantinople's disastrous decline as a patriarchate, having lost virtually all of its flock at home. It now seeks some kind of relevance.
But probably the thing that makes this situation persist is the fact that both Constantinople and Moscow are tone-deaf. Constantinople views every opposition to it as being motivated by Russia, and vice versa. Neither will recognize that each Local Church does things for its own reasons. Constantinople and Moscow are stuck in a weird Cold War time warp of bi-polarism, which itself is completely untraditional and does not accord with Church history.
I don't think there will be an end to any of this soon. There are shockingly few people involved in the decision-making processes for Constantinople and Moscow.