On point 2: It was not. Part of the issue at least during my time was exactly that mindset: Certain alliances wanted hostilities to end but refused to make any gestures of good faith whatsoever. What hands were extended were not always met. That's not on Syndi. That's on whomever decided not to give that a shot. It's not a decision one can blame them for, but it also makes it rather idiotic to expect syndi to suddenly pacify. It's how politics work.
That also touches into the whole "NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT" narrative. Want to know my damn honest opinion? They don't, because you're doing it in a shitty way. Running up to alliances you have barely built a rapport with and suggesting they leave their allies in order to join you to make the game more fun for you (as they evidently feel quite comfortable) is *not* how you form a sphere. You can't make people join your sphere if the *only* compelling argument you can make is "to shake things up".
Provide incentives that appeal to your audience. Consider their wants and needs. Cater to that. *That* is how you build a sphere. That is ultimately how syndisphere/OO was built brick by brick, and kept together. Not via a "omg we must win" approach- the winning came as a result of the cohesion provided by the accomodating approach taken by us.
Similarly, building spheres takes time. Building the relations required before making a sphere? Even more time. You're trying to move too fast with too little leverage, and it backfires on you every. !@#$ing. time.
Then, every time you complain and moan about it, you erode your own credibility and capital- capital which would be required for future endeavors. You're showing your hand. That transparancy will just become another obstacle to your success.
But who am I to give advice?