The ROCOR service that I saw had absolutely NOTHING to do with some imaginary "rigorist Greek position". The individuals in question were baptised since they were unsure of what formula was used in their childhood. Their children were not re-baptised since it was known how they were baptised. The couple was re-married because they "died" in the pool and rose again as a new creation. Had they been more sure about their earlier baptism, they would have not been baptized nor would they have been re-married.
So, this is one case. What of the common practice? When I used to visit ROCOR parishes in the 90s, it was standard for Latins to be received through baptism. Period. Has that changed? I certainly knew of cases where Latins were received otherwise, but that was not the norm, at least as far as I saw in the US. Further, the theological explanations were those of St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, not Bishop Nikodim Milash, St Philaret of Moscow, the Tsarist-era Trebnik, and on down the line. Has this also changed?
If so, that is very interesting. Perhaps one of the things that allowed or flowed from union? At any rate, the MP itself is quite clear in not following St Nikodemos' reading of the canons. Instead, following the consensus of the Russian Church for centuries, it understands Canons 8 and 11 of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 1 of St Basil the Great, Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 68 of Carthage, and, of course, Canon 95 of Trullo to mean that Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, and Old Believers "have already received the Sacrament of Baptism, but outside of Orthodoxy" and thus are received through chrismation and renunciation of heresies (cf. Protopriest Vladislav Tsypin's introduction to canon law, Церковное право, used in all the seminaries). JWs, Mormons, Adventists, et al., however, are received as heathens.