>the article is claiming that to Westerners a smile is neutral [...] The article is making the implication that a smiling Westerner [...] is faking something.
I don't see where you got the second sentence as the article's implication. Especially since it's rather contradictory with the first sentence.
I'm trying to see how you find those statements to be contradictory.
Maybe you think that the same concept is being discussed in the two sentences? Really there are multiple concepts at play so calling one of them neutral relative to one another and the other one "fake" isn't a contradiction at all. They're different things.
Just because the emotion being expressed is supposed to be neutral doesn't mean that the facial expression can't be implying something more. The article author's contention is that the facial expression is fake and expressing more of an emotion than is present, given that the "real" underlying emotion is one of neutrality in the smile and no-smile cases.
Because they are separate sides to the same thing. Westerners smile as a "neutral" stance, but to a Russian it feels disingenuous because smiling isn't "neutral" but is suppose to convey something.
I don't see where you got the second sentence as the article's implication. Especially since it's rather contradictory with the first sentence.