Hmph! I could have sworn we discussed this a couple of times already, but I searched 'Protestant' and 'Orthodox' and none of the threads rang a bell.
OK... 1) Modern Protestantism (as opposed to mediæval and early church schisms and heresies) pretty much requires the printing press, to make Scripture widely available to the laity so that they can form their own opinions.
2) Orthodoxy is intimately tied up in nationality and culture, in ways that Catholicism wasn't. Firstly, under the Byzantines, the Church was part of the state, so heresy was treason. This doesn't allow for very successful 'protestant' movements. (And at the time, the discussions tended to be on aspects of Christology - how many natures, how many wills, can you show images....) Secondly, AFTER the Empire fell, Orthodoxy was how you distinguished yourself from the Muslim Turk (to grossly oversimplify).
2a) True, in Russia, the Ottomans (or even the Byzantines) were off to the side, and not quite as directly affected, but similar rules hold. AND they were under significant external threats.
Personally, I think you'd have to have the Byzantine Empire fall creating multiple Christian successor states, with tug-of-war between religious and secular leaders, and possibly the Ecumenical Patriarch losing respect. In other words, replay the Western Empire in the East. Then when the printing press comes, the area is just as ripe for 'protests' as the West was.
Getting schisms is trivial. Happened several times (Monophysities, Arians, Nestorians, etc., etc.) Getting something one could can 'Orthodox Protestant' is a touch harder.