It already has. As I said their leader got greedy. There were elements that wanted a new liberal tsar rather than the old despotic one and would support a Polish prince once they converted to orthodoxy and gave back the fortresses they captured. The son was willing but the father was not and wanted to have his cake and eat it so they resisted and those that were willing to capitulate joined them and the fabled Polish Lithuanian Muscovite Commonwealth was gone just like that.
Unfortunatelly,he was not greedy,but pious - and want save moscovite souls now,not waiting 100-200 years.
Both russians and poles suffered for it.
Even if the Russians would not have become Catholic, it would not have been a huge deal once the era of mass secularization would have come around. Nowadays, even in the more religious US
Wrong gentlemen, the real reason is much more prosaic, for as it turns out, contrary to myths, Sigismund III Vasa, although pious, was nevertheless tolerant of other faiths, during his reign Lutheran masses were held at Wawel(sic!) and the king himself did not shy away from life and even liked to play goldsmith.
Ba did a piece of work, and also liked to paint made a series of his own paintings as well as collecting them.
The problem is that everything was later stolen by the Swedes/Russians unnecessary chalk from the royal castle in Warsaw.
The real reason was that Hetman Stefan Żółkiewski, who had been given full power to negotiate peace, exceeded it significantly by promising the boyars that Wladislav IV would convert to Orthodoxy, become a tsar and PLC would give back all the castles and cities captured during the last war.
The king could not agree to the latter, so he had a choice, a vague possibility that his son would become tsar, but there was a good chance that he would simply be assassinated like the previous one because Moscow was not safe then, or he would make it so that no one could be put on the Moscow throne, but the war gains that were already real would remain with PLC.
And it should be added that Ladislaus IV was already in his youth a beloved royal son, as, by the way, all three of Sigismund's sons, and Sigismund himself was not a heartless son of a bitch. Nevertheless, he loved and cherished his children. So seeing the real fear of losing his son in this way, he decided the game was not worth the candle.
The problem with Sigismund's bad face was that someone had to be made a scapegoat in this era and since Bathory was loved for Inflants, Ladislaus for Smolensk and that he was the last barrier of security against the Cossack rebellion, John Casimir as a dedicated ruler who, seeing the stupidity of the nobility, gave up the crown it went to Sigismund even though he was in fact... the best electoral king of all?
The only one who understood what the whole deal was about and at the same time didn't let himself be swayed by some chancellor? And his rule was stable, and the PLC grew.
It is only since the 1980s that the historiography has begun to unscrew his bad legend, but these facts have not yet reached the public. But slowly this is changing.