No. It fits Captain Angel's perspective as an edgy pirate pining after their lover, but Starfleet is full of hopeful, enthusiastic scientists who are in space because they want to be. They love exploration for exploration's sake, and are on a ship full of people who likely have similar interests.
Angel's perspective is warped by their passion; I mean, they're literally in the middle of hijacking a Starfleet ship to get their lover back. They think their dependency on love is universal, when in reality most people are more emotionally stable than them. Although it probably helps when you're in Starfleet and have an incredibly supportive working environment and not, you know, a pirate crew.
Starfleet is driven by love and passion, just not in the toxic way that Angel is. Its a passion for exploration and discovery, and a love for your comrades and fellow lifeforms. Angel is right, she just goes about it in entirely the wrong way.
True enough; it's a very different framing, but there's still love there, still passion.
I think a big difference is that Starfleet folks tend to be more intrinsically driven. Space isn't something that needs to be "made bearable" (unless you're McCoy I guess)—space is cool in its own right, tons of things to see and people to meet. But on top of that, the Federation has such a high tech level and quality of life that living on a starship is pretty luxurious.
Depends on what we mean by "space", but IMO this sentiment is much more contemporary than what someone living in the space-based luxury we see from Starfleet would think.
Honestly I feel like most of NuTrek is overseen by people who never really liked star trek in the first place and were tasked with watering down the IP into lowest common denominator mass market schlock instead of expanding on the series.
It didn't help that when Discovery came out the majority of reviewers clearly knew extremely little about the Star Trek as a whole. I remember reading an article on how Discovery breaks ground for female characters in Star Trek, who previously have been stereotyped to caregiving roles.
I was not a fan of SNW season 1. It felt like it focused on visuals and recycled a bunch of low effort cliches for the plot. They also seemed to try to rush character development in a way that felt completely unearned.
However, I loved SNW season 2. It's the first show I felt was a true modern successor for Star Trek. While not perfect, it managed to do a great job taking classic themes of star trek and updating them to the modern era. I consider "Under the Cloak of War" an all time Star Trek great. Also season 1 being bad actually makes it feel more like Star Trek.
So to answer your question: No. This is incredibly stupid. While the words were by a villain, it implied that there was a lot of truth to them. There are many ways to lead a fulfilling life without (romantic) love. There are many things in the galaxy beyond coldness. This has been well established by Star Trek and demonstrated by multiple characters in multiple series.
Also, they should give whoever writes lower decks a serious show. They clearly have an extremely deep understanding of Star Trek and have done a good job developing characters.