This isn't an opinion, since it's not based in facts. He is talking about his feelings; and even those aren't all that coherent:

Now come Greeks bearing the gift of confirmation that Margaret Thatcher was right about socialist governments: “They always run out of other people’s money.”

Yeah just a tiny problem with that:

He chose only one cabinet member with prior government experience.

And one more:

Since joining the euro zone in 2001, Greece has borrowed a sum 1.7 times its 2013 GDP.

He seems to understand that other incompetent Greek governments were responsible, but his feelings tell him that he should blame the current one nonetheless.

Greece, from whose ancient playwrights Western drama descends, is in an absurdist melodrama about securing yet another cash infusion from international creditors.

That's not correct on two levels. The current melodrama is about an old cash infusion, and Syriza actually wants to restructure the old debt, which is not the same as a cash infusion.

Varoufakis’s idea of cooperation is to accuse the creditors whose money Greece has been living on of “fiscal waterboarding.”

Yeah why would he say such a thing?

Its 25 percent unemployment (50 percent among young workers) results from a 25 percent shrinkage of GDP.

Ah that's why. But let's continue:

It is a mendicant reduced to hoping to “extend and pretend” forever.

But reece doesn't want to do that they want to restructure the debt while the creditors want a third "rescue package". They want to pretend that they aren't going to lose any money, but that won't work.

So what if Greece leaves the European Union [I think he means eurozone]?

If it also leaves the misbegotten European Union, this evidence of the E.U.’s mutability might encourage Britain’s “euro-skeptics” when, later this year, that nation has a referendum on reclaiming national sovereignty by withdrawing from the E.U.

But that would be quite a bit of contagion. Why does he now completely switch to a rant about the EU? Also, October 2016 to sometime 2017 is not "later this year".

It cannot be said too often: There cannot be too many socialist smashups.

But he rightly pointed out that the Greek problem is much older and conservative and social democrats are the parties responsible. What exactly makes him think that he should blame Syriza for a problem they have inherited? Is he even aware that they came to power this year for the first time?

The best of these punish reckless creditors whose lending enables socialists to live, for a while, off of other people’s money.

Well, the first half of the sentence is correct and that should have happened, but again it wasn't the "socialists" but the established center right and center left governments that fucked up.

Let's jump back a bit:

This protracted dispute will result in desirable carnage if Greece defaults, thereby becoming a constructively frightening example to all democracies doling out unsustainable, growth-suppressing entitlements.

Uh, Greece actually has one of the weakest social safety nets in Europe. Their unemployment entitlements end after a year. But, their their pensions cost 11.7 percent of GDP in 2007 which was only a bit above EA average of 11 percent. Yes, the cost now has gone up to 16 percent despite massive cuts, but that is primarily the result of the depression and not extraordinarily high pensions. In 2007 Germany paid 10.4 percent of GDP on pensions. So this actually isn't a "unsustainable, growth-suppressing entitlements" story. Especially not since some other crisis countries actually had below average pension spending (Ireland 4 percent, Spain 8.4 percent) while Poland with 11.6 percent should have ended in entitlement hell right next to Greece if he was right.

OK, he is angry and when you are angry and likely a bit pissed (in both the Australian and American sense) there can be problems stringing a coherent story together. So, shit like blaming a completely new government for old debt just happens, I guess. As does completely switching the subject (to the EU) mid sentence article.

But even for opinion pieces there should be some kind of fact checking involved and mistakes made during a drunken rant should be addressed.

• It was conservative and social democrat parties not the "Maoists, Marxists and supporters of Che Guevara" that caused the debt problem in Greece.

• It wasn't caused by "unsustainable, growth-suppressing entitlements", but an overal bloated budget, including genius moves like buying more tanks than Germany has. Entitlements in Greece weren't all that high before the crisis in percentage of GDP terms.

• The creditors want Greece to submit to austerity and another "cash infusion", while Syriza wants to restructure the current debt and might it quite clear that they will force a decision now and end extend and pretend.

• "Desirable carnage", isn't.

• "Rumpelstiltskin" WTF? This is stupid on two levels. One: "ach, wie gut, dass niemand weiß, dass ich Rumpelstilzchen heiß! It is an essential part of the story to get the name right, but that's a general problem and not his, but it's both an aweful (his story of who the bad guys are) and an excellent (reality) metapher for which he is very much to blame. A innocent woman is faced with a troika of antagonists. her father that makes up a bullshit claim about what is possible (not unlike the IMF), the King who is only interested money, and the Rumpelstilzchen that provides gold out of thin air, but in return eventually demands her yet unborn child (in 2009 118,000 children were born in Greece in 2014 not even 93,500). But, it ends with her calling it by its true name (Greece is bankrupt and needs to restructure its debt) and everybody lives happily ever after, well except for Rumpelstilzchen who rips itself apart out of anger.