Did the Second Council of Constantinople Teach Miaphysitism?

I've had some exchanges with Coptic Orthodox folk, and though the discussions had can be very technical and abstract, sometimes what they claim can be easily shown to be false (or true). I had the opportunity to show that one claim made to me was clearly false. A Coptic sent me a picture of a footnote that reads, "Even miaphysite expressions of one nature in Christ, correctly used, were now declared orthodox, in Canon 8 of the Council of Constantinople of 553." Here is the screenshot in its entirety, so you may know that I'm not misquoting it, and so that you know that this is published out there somewhere. 

So, being an interesting, and easily verifiable, claim, I looked up the Canons. Here is what Canon 8 declares. 

If anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery

That is clearly the opposite of what miaphysites teach. Yes, we can use "one nature" language, but we have to understand them as the Fathers understood them. And how did the Fathers understand them? That they were a hypostatic union. And what is being anathematized? That one nature or substance is what composes Christ. But miaphysites do say that Christ is a singular nature. So they are condemned by this Canon of the Council. The opposite of what my Coptic friend claimed.

Canon 7 makes it even more clear that it's being rejected:

If anyone using the expression, in two natures, does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.

Now, the obvious response from Coptics is going to be that they deny the confusion of Christ's two natures. However, it seems clear from their Christology that if Christ has one nature, the human nature and the divine nature are indeed confused. If they insist they don't, they insist upon a contradiction. But that's a conversation that deserves more detail elsewhere. For now, we just know that the Second Council of Constantinople does not support the miaphysite position.