My point is that "opposite to what happened" has no immediate connection to what he believes.

I find normal that he tried to negotiate a better deal and that his negotiating position was worse because he was the defaulting party.

He can still (or not) honestly believe the responsibility should be more/fully with the lender. I do agree up to some point that the richer entity should bear more responsibility, but I have a feeling his discourse is often very political (trying to mobilize and get people excited) rather than propose some realistic attainable policies.