I've yet to watch the video, partially because of the length but also because, as it stands, I disagree. I did see part of the video, though, and I think it's not only unrealistic, but also a bit idealistic.
I won't go on a long spiel about this, just note two things. The first of which is that Reggie, now more than ever, he's a video game celebrity. When Reggie's on screen, people get hyped, and ultimately he does well to provide a likable face for NoA (and, as a result, Nintendo as the West sees it. Until that dies off completely, firing him is not only unlikely, but its also unsafe, as it would paint Nintendo as a dubious and unfriendly company that cares as little for its employees as it does its fans. It would be a very bad move on a public level.
Second, on to the "idealistic" part...this idea that Reggie is the reason for such a disconnect between Nintendo and Western Audiences seems...misplaced. Regardless of what the previous head of Nintendo might have done, these "would haves" are not only speculation, but also they deny the idea that NoA is a company. A company full of people with ideas and suggestions, a decision-making body as a whole rather than simply in parts with the head controlling the whole thing. If NoA fails at something, its a failure as a company, not simply on Reggie's side- he didn't make the decision alone but, as the head, he is the one who will take the blame.
Ultimately, though, I reserve judgment on these things until Nintendo "fails". I like Nintendo quite a bit, and as a result, I really want to see them "fail". Their E3 conference this year, at least to the masses, was close to a failure, but they didn't really take a large hit for it. But true failure, hitting rock bottom at at least one point, is where we can really see the company opening their eyes to a larger future and taking chances. Once they've reached that point, then I'll say either way, but as Nintendo exists as a stable company I feel that firing either of these individuals would simply be a waste.