I’m getting Alexander Nevsky from all sides here. The starting point is a listener’s comment on my mention of Nevsky in last week’s Radio Derb.

John — For a very different interpretation of events, read this.
I myself am an Orthodox Christian. But it’s important to remember that Alexander Nevsky was canonized by the Russian Orthodox church only in 1964, only under Patriarch Alexsei II, who was basically just a stooge of the Communists. [? Wikipedia says “He was glorified (canonized) by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1547” — JD.] Usually the church doesn’t wait eight centuries for canonization.
Nevsky was chosen for this because the Soviet Union was in the midst of its “Holy Mother Russia” propaganda campaign.
In fact, such nonsense like this is why there is ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), which was basically the Russian church in exile, considering the Church in Russia to be a sham and anyone connected to it an apostate who is privy to a farce. Only recently did the Russian Orthodox Church (in Russia) and ROCOR reunite (as common communicants).
As such, your Russian listener whom you quoted at length is viciously slandering Orthodoxy when he says that “saying ‘no’ to the Pope … has always been the sole raison d’etre of the Orthodox Church.” That is just disgusting. If that were true, why would Orthodox believers in Russia have risked their lives to preserve their true religion in underground churches; why would they go to the GULAG because they wouldn’t renounce their faith; why would they endure the worst treatments because the godless and murderous ideology of Communism hates above those who do not and will not believe in a “paradise on earth”?
After all, the Communist “worker/peasant state” is nothing if not anti-Western. What glory and honor for the Orthodox Church, then, in embracing Communism, the political ideology of the anti-West. And the Pope himself, a stalwart anti-Communist whom the Soviets tried to assassinate — what better way to “say no” to him than to embrace Communism? But they didn’t. Only the political sham of the open and public Orthodox Church in Russia, which “canonized” this Prince Alexander Nevsky.

But then again:

Mr. Derbyshire — Far be it from me to argue in favor of “oriental despotism” but isn’t your listener being a wee bit simplistic in bemoaning the evils of Alexander Nevsky? I’m far from an expert in medieval Russian history, because it tends to be about as depressing and bloody a topic as one can find, but the Teutonic knights invaded Russia numerous times and had fought, and eventually lost, many bloody battles against Nevsky. The Teutons considered the Orthodox, not entirely without merit I must confess, to be heathens and infidels and had waged numerous crusades against them. It is thus not exactly shocking that Nevsky was a bit … suspicious about the Pope’s offer to place the entire order at his command (in a crude comparison, it’d be like giving McArthur unreformed and unrepentant elements of the Japanese army to use in Korea. I’d imagine he’d be a little wary).
Your reader also exhibits a classic characteristic of neoconservatives (which was also in evidence this summer with Georgia): a tendency to volunteer other peoples and cultures to face the full onslaught of an enemy. The Mongols were pretty nasty folk, and had Nevsky gone “all in” with the West in fighting him it stands to reason that Russia might have been entirely wiped out. Just ask the Byzantines how reliable Papal guarantees of military support were, and that was in order to protect what was widely recognized to be one of the great centers of Christian civilization, I would guess that the concerns about Novgorod would be a bit less pressing.
Far more interesting, from my perspective at least, was the performance of Pyotr Stolypin, a figure with whom I’m sure you would very greatly sympathize. Given how corrupt Russia is I have very little faith that any of these vote totals (except Stalin’s) are accurate, but it’s interesting that whoever was in charge of this contest thought Stolypin worth boosting. Russia’s history doesn’t have many examples of political leaders who “got it” but Stolypin is one of the few.

[Me] I am now totally confused about Nevsky. I went to look him up in my 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, my usual recourse in such cases, but was astounded to find there is no entry for him. Stolypin looks like a good egg, though. There were some brave reformers in late-Tsarist Russia. Vladimir Nabokov’s father was another one, and I believe a friend of Stolypin’s. Alas: between the reactionary monarchists and the leftist revolutionaries, these reformers didn’t stand a chance. Nabokov Sr. was murdered by one of the former; Stolypin, by one of the latter. Poor Russia!

Rick Brookhiser advises me that the Eisenstein movie is unspeakably awful in every way a movie can be, and then some. Haven’t seen it, couldn’t say, but Rick is a man of sound judgment.