Nestorius's "Nestorianism" was never misrepresented, distorted, or fabricated; there was simply no injustice in the treatment he received as a response to the heretical doctrinal position he uncompromisingly held and supported till his very last breath.
Did Nestorius actually insist that Christ's human and divine natures are two distinct persons or did he merely believe that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ rather than the mother of God? Nonetheless, the Assyrian Church of the East does not hold to Nestorianism, whether or not Nestorius created it in the first place.
As for the politics of Chalcedon...
Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon
1- According to some Scholars, there, was no need for it, but politics played
a big role. "It was only under constant pressure from the Emperor Marcian
that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw a new formula of belief."
2- The different expressions of the one faith are due in large part to
non-theological issues, such as "unfortunate circumstances, cultural
differences and the difficulty of translating terms." It is debated whether
the opposition to Chalcedon was out of a Christological issue or an attempt
to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine.
3- Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation,
in the Council of 381, of a primacy of honor for Constantinople, the New
Rome," second only to that of the old Rome. It seems that both Rome and the
Emperors used the Council of Chalcedon to carry out their respective plans:
Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the Emperors for
trying to bring the entire Church in the East under the jurisdiction of the
See of Constantinople.
4- No one can deny the disadvantages of the imperial interventions in the
dispute. Most probably, Chalcedon's decisions and terms would have been
different if the Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria had not intervened.
Since 450, they were gathering signatures for the Tome of Leo, the bishop of
Rome. Many bishops of Chalcedon approved it only as a concession to the
bishop whom the imperial authority supported
5- The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be
interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that
Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the
Alexandrines rejected it.
6- The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches,
did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches
himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was
deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous
belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions
disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment
but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith,
not for any man whomsoever." The evidence is sufficient for us to look for
other reasons for his condemnation. Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary
vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.
7- As soon as the members of the council had assembled, the legates of Rome
demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the order of the bishop of
Rome whom they called, "the head of all churches"
. When the imperial
authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said
that he "dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the
apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to
happen." As a matter of fact, the Council of 381 had been held without the
participation, not to say the authorization, of the bishop of Rome, and the
Council of 553 against his wishes. It is evident that the delegates intended
by the words, "the head of all churches" to assert the claim of Rome of
ecumenical supremacy over the church
8- Chalcedon rejected the Council of 449, and Leo of Rome considered it as
latrocinium, a council of robbers, a title which "has stuck for all time."
This may uncover the intention behind such an attitude. A council which
ignored Rome's authority, robbing its claim of supremacy, was not for Leo a
church council but a meeting of robbers
. The Council of Chalcedon, without
even examining the issue, denounced the Council of 449, putting the entire
responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus. Only one hundred and
four years later, the decision, not of Chalcedon, but of the so called
latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned
their Three Chapters. It is remarkable that the desire of the Emperor
Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt
Yes, this sounds very much like a coup to me.