This is my first time trying to answer on here so I hope this is in-depth enough.

First, I'll leave aside the question of authorship (as another user pointed out, the idea that Putin himself wrote this is suspect) but since it bears his name, I'll refer to President Putin as the author.

That being said, the interesting thing (to me anyway) is less to do with the facts presented and more the why that is presented. For instance, why does he refer to the Munich Agreement as the "Munich Betrayal?" (A terms mostly found on pages dealing with Soviet defenders of the Molotov-Ribbtrop Pact like here and why does he spend the opening sections of this article discussing Soviet memory of the war and his family's connections to it?

I would argue that he is doing so in order to play up a familiar sentiment in Russian history when discussing World War II which is focusing on how it was the USSR who was the sole reason for allied victory. Without going into the debate on how true that is (another question entirely) I think it is important to keep that in mind that Putin is very clearly connecting with a Russian (and even a formerly Soviet) audience by appealing to a shared memory of collective defense of their country against the Nazis.

In order to do this, Putin paints an argument of the Soviets as largely apolitical and defensive in nature during Hitler's aggressive expansions into central and eastern Europe in order to come to the thesis of his argument: that the western powers are more to blame for the rise of Hitler than the Soviets because they dealt more directly with him and gave in to his demands more than Stalin did.

Putin's argument and defense of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact largely comes down to speculation about what the Western powers were hoping Hitler would do. Putin claims that the English and French were hoping Hitler would continue to demand territory in Eastern Europe and eventually push him further East into conflict with Stalin and the USSR. That idea is largely absent of any substantive proof (that I have seen anyways) and largely comes down to recent attempts by largely Russian historians to argue the same (see this for a further look into Russian historiography of World War II.

What Putin doesn't seem to (or doesn't want to) grasp is the larger reason for why the USSR didn't intervene earlier in Hitler's aggression. For instance, when he discusses the Munich Agreement and how it was a betrayal of the Western powers to the Czechoslovakian government, he neglects to mention the common defense pact that Stalin and the USSR had with the Czechs along with France, but the Soviet government did not want to get involved unless France did as well. They also were coming out of a recent set of purges that left many of the upper ranks of the military being reorganized, which hindered the ability of the USSR to project its power. Where Putin sees Soviet inaction as something to be looked at fondly (meaning they did not actively appease Hitler as he claims France and the United Kingdom did) it is more likely that there was not a lot of action due to internal conflicts and reorganization following cruel purges.

Finally, this article, while historical, is not necessarily historical in its aim. Putin's goal with this article is not to shed light on Western failures in a historical sense but in a modern, political, sense. The first and last page continually reflect current political issues that Russia is facing: how to project its power over former Soviet countries, while trying to undermine the West. It is a strategy that Putin uses extremely often, and one that he uses in order to weaken the unity of the EU while promoting Russia.

I hope this helps you be able to look at this article with the correct context of why Putin might want to promote certain countries' actions while trying to downplay the USSR's own involvement. A good book on how Russia was involved with WWII and how it has impacted Russian identity to this day is Russia's War: A History of the Soviet War Effort by Richard Overy