Its from September of '04. This is a reaction of the EP to the seemy underside of the 3rd Rome propaganda of Moscow. Years ago I read somewhere that Pan Slavism in the 19th century was actually an off shoot of this idea. In the GOA we came up close and personal with this during the disruptions caused by the problem with the failed archbishop Syridon when Moscow came fishing in troubled American waters.
Notice the ethnocentrism of the comments by the various Russians the EP quotes. This is an example of the heresy of phyletism, something, I am sad to say, the GOA itself has been guilty of to an extent, though more in the past than today. The 3rd Rome idea is a dangerous and uncanonical one all the way around. It may be that the reaction to the Belgrade paper, namely that all the delegates save those of the Russian Church, either voted for it or the Russians feared they would, was born of comments like these from the Russians.
The 3rd Rome mentality saved Christianity in Russia while the EP was selling out to the Catholics for support and subsequently getting sacked by the Muslims.
It's unfair to call it propaganda.
Further without the 'Second Rome' mentality none of the canons at the councils would have come to pass.
Frankly actions of the EP have shown true hubris and deliberate meddling on the canonical territory of other sees.
Barring any theological innovation by the EP, and a resultant non-communion of some or all of the remaining Orthodox Churches, Moscow has no chance whatsoever of filling the role of the "third fiddle" so to say.
But we must understand that the EP's primacy is only temporary until such time when the Vatican (from an Orthodox point of view) returns to Orthodoxy, theologically. The EP is "first in honor" only by default (non-communion with Rome), since the primacy of Peter is established by the same Ecumenical Council.
If, for example, the Turks decide to close or bulldoze the premises of the tiny EP's parish, his office remains and the honor of that office retains all the privileges, regardless if what is physically left of Constanitnople is but a heap of lumber and bricks.
The next Ecumenical Council may very well consider granting Moscow the status of the "3rd Rome," because of the size of its jurisdiction, just as Constantinople was elevated over other older Churches simply because of the city's imperial significance (as was Old Rome for that matter). But such elevation of the MP could not be a hostile act of demoting the EP any more than the establishment of the EP was a hostile act of demoting the Pope (which it wasn't).
That said, the EP was not always right, and needed to be corrected. One example, for instance, is the (in)famous Pat. Meletius IV (Metaxakis), who opened a wound that is still wide open and sore, of introducing the "New Julian Calendar" (he didn't introduce the Gregorian Calendar), and who actually recognized Anglican orders and at one time proclaimed Anglican-Orthodox union (of course no other orthodox Church did!).
But he also showed, as did the current EP, some jurisdictional ambitions, having absorbed the Orthodox Church of Finland (whose calendar in uncanonical, by the way, because that Church celebrates Pascha according to the Catholic calendar, and apparently with EP's blessings), which was jurisdictionally under the MP.
The laity must be very much aware of personal corruption among the clergy, especially the senior clergy. Considering that they all come from monastic ranks, such wanton ambitions and power hungar is wholly unacceptable and highly damaging to the Church.
Still, I do not understand the position of either Moscow or Constantinople. I thought the whole point of Orthodoxy, as opposed to Catholicism, was the denial of any single locus of authority. Say what you will about the claims of Rome (the first and only real one :) ), at least they are based on a theological basis with a grant to St. Peter by our Lord, not on who is the biggest and baddest bishop in the Church. It would seem to me that any claim by either Constantinople or Moscow for a leadership position within the Church that is vested with real authority, and not just honor, would only strengthen the prior claims of Rome to hold that position.