I don't really understand the counter argument here.
My reading of the argument[1] is that "Popularity amongst developers forced Rust devs hands in adding async". If this is the argument, then a counter argument of "It never (or only) made sense in the popular language (either)" is a non-sequitor.
IOW, if it wasn't added due to technical reasons (which is the original argument, IIRC), then explaining technical reasons for/against isn't a counter argument.
[1] i.e. Maybe I am reading it wrong?
My broader point is that the possibility of there being a "technically better" construct was simply not in scope for Rust. In order for Rust to capture Javascript programmers, async/await was the only construct that could possibly be considered.
And, to be fair, it worked. Rust's growth has been almost completely on the back of network services programming.
And the idea that async/await was only added to JS to work around its limitations is simply wrong. So the OP is overall wrong: async/await is not an example of someone taking something that only makes sense in one language and using it another language for familiarity.