As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.
Well, it's certainly another possible perspective and understanding of history. Whether it's Orthodox or not would be a separate question that can only validated by checking it against things Orthodox actually consider authoritative, like synodical decisions, the declarations of ecumenical councils, etc.
This is going to take this thread even further off-topic but I think it's important to clarify how Orthodox view these joint statements because one of the strongest non-traditionalist arguments against the way Orthodoxy currently conducts ecumenism is that it is actually very misleading to those we are dialoguing with.
When Rome sends representatives to one of these consultations, those representatives actually ‘represent’ Rome, in the sense that even if the Pope didn’t hand-pick them, someone who answers to the Pope, or someone who answers to someone who answers to the Pope did so. And if the Pope doesn’t feel they are doing a good job representing the Roman position, they can and will be replaced. Orthodoxy doesn’t work like that—even if you think of it in terms of each representative representing only his own autocephalous church, he does not do so in the same sense that Roman representatives represent the Pope.
Orthodox synods like to do things by consensus when possible. One practical consequence of this is that when an issue comes before the synod and a minority of bishops feel very strongly about it, while the majority don’t have strong feelings one way or the other (or are even slightly negative, but to a lesser degree than the positive side is positive), it is not at all uncommon for the synod to let the minority have their way. So when the administrative synod of a local Church meets and the topic comes up ‘we’re invited to such-and-such consultation’, there may be only two or three bishops who have strong feelings that the Church should send a representative, while the rest of the bishops think, “I’m not interested, but I suppose there’s no harm in talking.’ And thus the synod decides to send representatives in a decision that really amounts to ‘well, let Bishops X & Y do what they want, it doesn’t really matter’. And so representatives ‘from Local Church X’ are selected and go to the consultation. But they don’t actually represent the primate, or the entire synod, or even the entire administrative synod. They actually represent the 2 or 3 bishops who are most pro-dialogue in the entire Church. If the representative actually is a hierarch, then he at least represents 1 vote in the synod. But If he’s not a hierarch then he’s generally a compromise candidates, meaning that while he was selected by the bishops who were pro-dialogue, he doesn’t actually representative any of them individually, and he may disagree with each on a number of individual topics.
This is why Orthodox rarely treat ‘Joint Statements’ as particularly persuasive much less authoritative. For us, they are little more than the personal opinions of the attendees—attendees that are largely self-selected from the most extreme pro-ecumenical margin of the Church in the first place. If the opinions are Orthodox, they can be supported the same way any other Orthodox opinion is—by reference to Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods. If they are not, there presence in a ‘Joint Statement’ doesn’t make them any more Orthodox. As many problems as I have with Lyons and Florence they represent the only type of ecumenical dialogue whose pronouncements can actually mean anything—because the synod actually participated rather than simply acquiescing to someone going off to talk.