I think they make a good point, regardless.

Exactly, Putin is constantly describing Europe as a vassal state of the US and tries to drive wedges between European and US cooperation, especially when our interests clearly align like in Ukraine. In fact the biggest per capita contributions to the Ukrainian defense effort come from European countries. It's not like the US dragged Europe kicking and screaming to defend Ukraine, it's pretty obviously even more important for Europe than for the US. This is why so many European countries like Germany have made major ramp ups in military spending and defense. All these calls about Europe being a vassal state are basically telling Europe to shoot itself in the foot to show how independent it is. If they want a more unified foreign policy, the answer isn't stopping cooperation with the US and the defense of Ukraine. The answer is they have to work on more cooperation with their own member states so they can speak with a unified voice. Something Russia in reality actively works to prevent, using influence in countries like Hungary to drive a wedge in the EU and preventing unified foreign policy in the EU and from them becoming a more independent player.

It's kind of bizarre. The original article says (in a very repetitive and long-winded way) Europe needs to step up its military spending and send more of their own troops to the eastern borders to be able to counter Russian aggression on their own in the face of a potentially unreliable US who may be more focused on China. I honestly don't think the US would disagree here. Strong allies aren't a bad thing.

Economically it argues (again, in very unnecessarily long wording) the US will make decisions regarding protecting itself from a rising China without concern for Europe.

My opinion, this is probably true, although Europe might want to be concerned about China in its own right. Again, I'm not convinced the US wouldn't want strong economic partners either. This only gets into disagreement territory if the EU intends to partner with China to counter the US. That will go about as well as it did partnering with Russia for their energy dependence.

Bottom line the article makes just two arguments that I'm fairly sure the US would agree with, in an unnecessarily inflammatory way that does seem intended to drive a wedge between the US and EU. I'm not sure if they're just being salty, just trying to use emotion to rile people up to get things done, or if their goal is the second argument, an economic wedge, in which case they're arguing to tie themselves to another despot.