Very well put dzheremi!
May I add also, that after reading and studying the history for my own, while I support EO/OO unity, my support goes to my Church. After reading the minutes, I have much sympathy with Pope Dioscorus, and actually see him in a very positive light. In the same way as you see Ephesus 449, so do I for Chalcedon, in that negative light.
However, I'm a "progressive". I'm willing to debate why I see the differences in historical interpretation, and I'm willing accept the different historical interpretation of the Chalcedonian side. This acceptance of difference for me, a forgiveness of the past, and a moving on forward of a theological unity is what I personally advocate. After all, even though St. Cyril lifted anathemas from St. John Chrysostom, he wasn't shy in stating how he continued to justify Pope Theophilus' condemnation of him. I think we can learn from that precedent, that while we can justify our own positions, it does us nothing but leave us in an awkward position. We both hold the same Orthodox faith, but we remain divided because we just are not comfortable for whatever reason with uniting with a church where for centuries carried in us respectively the condemnation of those fathers we conversely held dearly to, and I don't think there's anything we can do about that but accept it humbly and accept the obvious one faith we carry together humbly, and let the rest be history. That is my take on unity.
The unity between St. Cyril and John of Antioch ironically is also another example to how we view unity to happen. St. Cyril did not ask the patriarch John to accept Ephesus, but to accept the faith written in this paper. It was enough for him to agree that St. Cyril rejoiced. It seems to me that his view of ecumenical councils was not a name that people should adhere to, but the faith it represents. Thus, our unity should not hinder the respective veneration of Ephesus 449 on our side or Chalcedon on your's, but equally recognizes that in each other's interpretation, we have precisely this one faith.
Finally, the fact that there are interpretations means that there needs to be a new way to think of our history. We need to admit that deep beneath the interpretation, there are holes that allow room for speculation that leads one to justify their respective sides. We need to admit that we are not going to look eye-to-eye on every little detail in this complex history of ours that have played so well into how this lead to this split until today. We need to admit that even if we lean towards one way, we can sympathize with why the other side can lean towards the other way. I think that's another way to move forward from all this.
Pray for me a sinner, Father. Welcome to oc.net!