You are not making a point by asking those questions...
If you think those where legitimate actions but generally think of yourself not as an authoritarian kind of person and in your book you don't fall under the definition of tankie, you may very well think so.
I believe many people would argue that if you are in favor of any kind of violence against the own civil populations with the army this brings you over the edge. But even if so, this doesn't make you as as person atankie, no questions asked, case done.
You can be generally against nuclear power except in one very specific case, scientific long time submarines for example, this doesn't make you a nuclear enthusiast.
In my oppinion its the same with tankie, but if you find an excuse for every or nearly all instances (by socialist/left/eastern block) it paints a picture that suggests you may be generally in favor of such measures if they are done by an entity you sympathise with, which would make the term fitting in my opinion
If you believe the term can refer to entities who are not on the left wing side of the political spectrum, you may be in a minority. But one could of course take those positions... I would strongly disagree with this one personally though, and I don't think this is how a lot of people use the term. I think most people use it to describe a portion of the socialist/communist spectrum, again the boundary is blurry but the direction is quite clear. (which gives you the answer for most of your questiom btw.)
Now let's turn the table:
Do you think the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meangless/useless?
If not could you please define them for me?
Edit: some typos
Also: you keep referring to states, which of course helps some ways of your argumentation but I think its mostly used for people, not nations