And that's all fine. There's still an issue with the framing of it though in that the EUs very good deal they had with May still allowed them a fall back to a still acceptable position for them, which is why they were fine with Varadkar sorting it out directly with Johnson. Johnsons public position (and Mays before him) was that there absolutely wouldn't be a border on the Irish Sea. He fell back from that position in order to get his agreement.
That can still be argued as per your second paragraph, in that "parties make public statements about all sorts of positions which are very far from the truth, but that they may climb down from those positions if forced to do so". It never seems to be mentioned that that is exactly what Johnson did, only that the EU were perceived to because of a threat of no deal.
The other thing to mention is it's still an acceptable position to the EU as ultimately they were happy as long as Varadkar was - they still haven't broken any of their red lines at all, only given up what they weren't expecting in the first place. I'm sure plenty of people are also happy with Johnsons deal too, there are still some that think him being the head of the "Conservative and Unionist Party" should still mean something though...