"...from the Russians (who have been less than positive about these things in the past)."
Yes and no. In recent times, the Russian Church has been the real bulwark against the idea of false unions of any kind (other local Orthodox Churches have been more vocal, but we all know that their boldness is in large part a result of knowing that Russia stands behind them.)
The Russian Church continues, in general, to take a dim view of theological game-playing that would lead anyone to think that union with non-Orthodox is possible. We leave those things to Metropolitan John Zizoulas. You will note that this call is not one for *ecclesiatical* unity, which is what the ecumenically minded are so concerned about.
There are those who believe that cooperation in the societal realm can only take place when we are in ecclesiastical unity. I think that this is what recent Russian statements have contradicted. There is a strong strain within the current Slavic tradition that believes that ecclesiastical unity is not necessary in order to oppose rampant atheistic secularism.
I would also point out that prior to the Revolution, it was the Russian Church that had the most active involvement in theological talks with non-Orthodox. Metropolitan Anthony (who later became first hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad), was particularly involved in talks with Anglicans at the turn of the last century, and held out great hope that his talks would lead to a return of Anglicanism to beliefs and practices such that union with Orthodoxy could take place.
As has been detailed in other threads, Metropolitan Tikhon had the same sorts of talks and relations with American Episcopalians and was very optimistic.
In both cases (certainly in America), the problem was that they hadn't yet realized that there were numerous strains within Anglicanism, one of which was a residual "Anglo-Catholicism" of the non-Juror tradition, which is indeed the closest non-Orthodox thing that there is to Orthodoxy. But they weren't meeting the others...
"The Russian Church continues, in general, to take a dim view of theological game-playing that would lead anyone to think that union with non-Orthodox is possible. We leave those things to Metropolitan John Zizoulas. You will note that this call is not one for *ecclesiatical* unity, which is what the ecumenically minded are so concerned about."
Sort of a cheap shot, A. Met. John, one of the most renowned theologians in Orthodoxy, is the representative of the EP to the renewed Orthodox/Latin dialog in which the Russians are participating. When the Orthodox reps met with the EP before the Belgrade meeting, he specifically cautioned them against glossing over any theological differences in the hopes of creating untiy where there is none. He went on to warn them, however, against those Romans or Orthodox who would throw up false barriers to constructive discussions. It seems to me that both warnings were warranted.
Sorry, I didn't mean to stir up a little bit of pan-Orthodox disunity here, and I wasn't blaming anyone for this historically but simply commenting on my experience.
That said, I hope we can all agree that this is an excellent idea, and he is focusing on what is the most important thing in Church unity at any level: orthodox faith. Otherwise, as I think the Pope was trying to point out, the world whittles it away, and we have no basis for defense against theories ranging from postmodern secularism to Islam. Without orthodoxy, it's just another WCC, that is, a basically secularist, soft-focus lefty organization that ultimately ends up taking positions that are even opposed to Christianity and Christians.