I think on the balance it is a fair assessment of the situation. I have a few comments, however.
1. The opposition to the EU accession, mentioned in the article, is a really nasty mix of Christian nationalists, plain nationalists, right wing populists, fascists, and skins - a rather uninteresting alternative to global capitalism.
2. I think it is unfair to blame post-communist reforms for the centre-province divide. It has always been there, even under communism. If anything, the EU accession created more opportunities for the country-side, especially the agricultural sector, which saw a sharp rise of demand (export) for its cheap and good quality food products.
3. I think a big part of the EE problem is a very muddy political structure. The existing political parties may use different slogans and labels that look "left" or "right" but: - these labels are used inconsistently (i.e. right wing social policies mixed with progressive economic policies and vice versa); - they are mostly PR gimmicks that do not reflect the actual policies pursued by the parties; and - the parties themselves are, for the most part, rackets and kleptocracies stealing whatever they manage to put their hands on - an it is how they are perceived by the population.
As far as I can tell, many people (both on the right and the left) who had high hopes about the reform became very disillusioned about the situation. I also observed popularity of right-bent nihilism among the young people, which is manifested by a combination of materialism, conformism, and reverence for power. I think it is no coincidence that Poland was the only EU country where the polls showed support for Bush.
4. Egalitarianism, mentioned by the article, might have been a part of the official ideology under "communism," but nobody took it seriously. Eastern Europeans tend to have a kulak mentality, combining greed and lust for social status. Because of the restriction on consumption (to increase investment) imposed by "communist" development policies, opportunities for getting rich were severely restricted, but not the desires. If I were to name only one significant factor accounting for the unpopularity of "communist" regimes in EE, it was the "egalitarianism" i.e. restricted ability to climb social ladders. The nauseating lust for status and wealth in EE was and still is widely spread.
5. The demise of the welfare state in Eastern Europe is not as much a result of global capitalism but the work of the local elites and their reptilian hostility to anything smacking of "communism" and "egalitarianism."
6. I think that the biggest winner of the post-communist reforms - not mentioned in the article - is the environment. The "communist" development policies had little regard for the environment, pollution and devastation of the environment were rampant. EU accession put a break on it.
Wojtek