Paul, I hear a guy espousing many of the same principles that he likely discussed regularly all the way back at Harbour Town when he worked alongside Pete Dye in 1969, colored with the perspective of seeing the real estate boom (and raking in lots of cash from it), and also seeing its after effects. He cares about the game as much as anyone in the world, and it's not surprising to hear him calling for more sustainable architecture. I don't think many people in the 70s, 80s, and 90s knew how unsustainable the golf development boom really was, and it seems rather petty that you would listen to an interview like this and decide that he's full of it as an architect because some of his courses from decades ago don't match what he currently professes to be his philosophy. Your implication that he "doesn't quite have his head wrapped around this architecture thing" is just high school clique nonsense, as is the idea that he sees the minimalists winning and wants to align with them. Minimalism matters to about 800 people on this site. The rest of the golfing public just wants to play good courses, and Nicklaus' design reputation is in no danger for them. He has his name on seven courses in the Golf Digest Top 100. His design quality is second to few and his design reputation is truly second to none. You've been spending too much time on this site if you believe otherwise.
As for Nicklaus' courses, in my experience I've found them extremely playable. As Tom Doak mentioned, his corridors have always been wide. They're often long from the back tees, but I've never played a Nicklaus course without plenty of tees that play less than 6500 yards for the mortals among us. I've shot some big scores on his courses, but not by losing balls on a course with excessive teeth. Instead, I would compare his work to Pete Dye's in the sense that both present difficult shots with ample bailout room for the weaker player, but few players have the discipline to take that easier route presented. In short, he's always built courses that are enjoyable, though I have no doubt that he's focused on that aspect more as he has begun to play more recreational golf and also found his skills eroding somewhat. As for a natural presentation, I suspect you define that differently than he. I've always found his courses to highlight natural features. Even a place like Valhalla, built in the mid-80s, really highlights Floyds Fork and the wonderful terrain on the course. His shaping style has never been minimalistic, but I've never felt like his courses tried to diminish the natural features of the properties they were built upon. Perhaps working at Dismal and Sebonack has made him more cognizant of a minimalist aesthetic. If so, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have his head wrapped around the concept of architecture or that he's conceding to the Doaks and Coores of the world. It just means that he's growing and developing further as an architect, and that growth should really be lauded rather than used to build uninformed criticisms against his earlier work.