re. "Orthodox liturgists who dislike the Tridentine Missal"
I think a few issues are being confused here. There can and often is a difference between Orthodox opposition to the creation of "western rite" communities, and the propriety of "western rites" themselves. Where the criticisms do overlap (opposition is based on perceived problems with the rites themselves, and not simply some belief that they are unnecessary), I think one has to be careful to discern what the arguments and motives are for said criticisms. As others have mentioned here, sometimes it is really just poor disguised "anti-westernism", which IMHO is often (though not always) more than simple chauvenism, but is often a cover for modernism of one form or another. For example, ever notice how many things are disparaged as being "western", but really if you dig a little deeper you realize very quickly they have a legit place in the Orthodox tradition? Crypto (and not so crypto) stavroclasm is being championed in the name of a "rejection of scholasticism", despite the fact even the great hesychastic father St.Gregory Palamas spoke about the redemption upon the Holy Cross in a way these modernists would probably find downright "Anslemian". There are many other examples of this tendency I could go into, but I think that example illustrates my meaning clearly enough.
As someone else mentioned in this thread, some "Orthodox liturgists" deeply dislike the Roman Rite precisely because when all is said and done, they have some issues with the Byzantine Liturgy.
I'm not saying there is no room at all for legit criticism, only that there is alot of ill will and unfair dealing involved in such critiques, at least when they go beyond the level of "an Orthodox Western Rite is unnecessary" (at least this is my observation.)
re. "RCC going Protestant?"
While I'm not a big fan of "mediatrix" and "co-redemptrix" type doctrines, I do believe it is fair to say that on a practical level the RCC has been kicking the best parts of it's liturgical and pious traditions to the curb. Also, while one can argue that nothing has dogmatically changed as a direct result of Vatican II on any official level (which I basically agree with, though there is good grounds to believe that the documents of Vatican II are sufficiently ambiguous to allow all sorts of different interpretations, and this is precisely what has happened - the decrees of the council were promiscuous in their language to say the least), on a practical/disciplinary level much has officially changed; the same goes for the Vatican's basic posture towards the world in general (whether that be other Christian religions, non-Christian religions, or the secular order). This was done so carelessly (IMHO), that the grass roots consequence has been rampant heterodoxy by any "basic Christian" definition. It's like there are "no rules" now in most places - it's shocking to see what some religious congregations (particularly the female ones) are up to now days, or what liberalities are allowed in liturgical celebrations. In some places it's anarchic.
I will agree with Dcn. Lance to a degree...the Novus Ordo Missae can be utilized in a way which is not utterly repugnant to basic, "high church" sensibilities. If said in Latin (which is really the only good option, since the English translations are so awful, both in terms of accuracy and execution), with chant (or even simple "traditional" Roman Catholic liturgical hymns), in a "normal" pre-Vat II type Latin Church, with decent vestments and with a proper demeanor on the part of both the celebrent and the servers (not to mention that the servers be all male), and the priest facing the proper direction, it's not half bad.
Unfortunately, while there are no prohibitions against any of this, the Vatican has basically let local bishops do whatever they feel like in so far as allowing liberalities beyond this are concerned. Thus, you can basically guarantee that except for a few truly rare places on the face of this planet (though I will grant they do exist), you will never see what I've just described.
You also have to wonder, given what I've described, why on earth a completly new missal was even needed to begin with. It seems really redundent, and only an invitation for disaster (which frankly, is what I think the likes of Mgsr.Bugnini and the others involved with concocting this monstrosity had intended). With a few nips and tucks (like clearing up some accretion issues in the Tridentine Mass, like the issues surrounding the "last gospel", etc.) and if it was deemed truly necessary, some good translations into vernacular languages, they could have gone ahead and kept using the same Missal - thus living up to the letter of what Vatican II basically said regarding liturgical reform, and not opening a door to the anarchy of "liturgical creativity" which the 1969 Novus Ordo (de)form caused.