Taking a literary critical view of the video:
1) The GF jumps immediately to the conclusion that the BF is intentionally ignoring her, rather than, say, that he is missing or had had an accident and might be in a hospital. I think most people would get worried rather than angry, and would try their best to find out if their friend is missing, sick, hurt, dead. Not until the end of BF's long trip (convenient for the narrative, of course) does the GF bother to talk to his mother, yet this is one of the first persons she would have contacted in the very beginning of the affair (not just leaving messages and not calling assuming that the BF was just ignoring her). The whole plot of the story wouldn't be able to develop had the GF done the more natural thing.
2) Another contrivance is the statement in the introduction framing the emails that the BF "talked about [the trip] often". The purpose of this statement is to construct the GF as a "poor listener" (placing blame on the GF alone), but it seems disingenuous because the statement clashes with the BF's behavior during the trip itself. Since the story depends on the GF knowing nothing of the trip, it was the BF who was interested in discussing the trip and repeatedly (often) brought up the subject. This interest however evaporates once he actually goes on the trip itself (leaving the framing introduction to the period covered by the emails), for he makes no attempt whatsoever to contact the GF while in Europe despite the fact that internet cafes are everywhere (at least where tourists are likely to be found). Nor could he -- the story could not play out if he did. Not to mention that he claims to have had a (quad band?) mobile phone right there with him that he could have TURNED ON on a given occasion and given his sweetie a call. If the story is based on a real experience, one may wonder if the author is trying to cover his own failure to communicate adequately with the GF prior to trip. The story improves in plausibility if we understand that when the BF talked about the trip beforehand with the GF, he only referred to it vaguely and laconically. There are limits to being a "poor listener". It would be hard to imagine one taking part in a lengthy conversation about all the specific countries and places and activities the BF is going to do and missing out on the most basic fact about the whole conversation, and not just once but repeatedly.
3) So even if we credit the story as not being 100% fiction, the relationship comes across as unrealistically superficial. The BF doesn't communicate much with his GF, either before the trip or during it. The GF does not see him off at the airport (another thing that is precluded by the narrative), there is only a goodbye phone call which yet again failed the convey the basic notion that BF was going overseas for a few weeks. He had planned to take his phone (presumably quad band) and yet keep it switched off -- what is the point of that? But if he planned to not have it roam, why didn't he mention to his GF that he won't have phone access -- or is that yet another thing that she didn't get clued in on. The circumstances suggest a more superficial relationship like casual dating, where one could easily take a trip without informing the other, and yet the GF is in direct personal contact with the BF's mother. I'm sure any of these could have a logical rationale, but taken together they paint a pretty odd scenario.
BTW, the GF in the story reminds me very much of a friend I used to have. So the emails fit very well with the kind of vindictive personality I knew from her. But the emails are sure laden with lulzworthy moments, aren't they?