"1. N$O was approached in general terms by BK Sphere about hitting two spheres concurrently, as well as your own about hitting BK Sphere. We had not agreed to any plans."
The fact that both of our strikes were planned for mid June is just a coincidence. BK certainly wasn't informed about these plans at all - no way - definitely not. There's got to be some other reason a government member from a completely different sphere "thought" they had our support for a war on a specific date, that lines up with our plans, that also involves random chance, says the alliance that never tries to leave anything to random chance as a rule.
"2. N$O had planned its own single sphere v single sphere conflict (wasn't this the point of minispheres), independent of BK Sphere and had fixed a time and a place."
Hilmes ghosts but the Board did commit to a war on KETOG for mid June before the Sphunx leak, and that was a serious concern of mine when I took on Strategic Planning. Because I was definitely interested in maintaining our commitment there. 1.) Because it was a hard commitment and 2.) Because Whales.
"3. Surf's Up starts, plans in 2. are scrapped."
A classic NPO duality. Plans in 2 are scrapped but now I'm an !@#$ for having different interests and wanting to discuss different options and possibilities because I'm concerned this is a PR disaster and entering in any way that overtly supports BK would reinforce a resurgent IQ narrative and collapse the minispheres dynamic. I stated that we have no interest in bailing out BK from the beginning.
This is the point where I suggest the rules. There is plenty of discussion and overt conversation about the terms of The Syndicates entry and the conditions and limits under which that entry is presupposed. Roquentin even provides "tacit" approval, for those not at home keeping notes that means "saying whatever he needed to say to get his way, while knowing full well he'll break his commitment to suit his interests regardless of the consequences".
And since you keep railing on it, the fact that you want to e-lawyer your way around the exact words and ignore the debate and discussion surrounding the rules of our involvement against KETOG, which I did go through pains to make explicit and reach a consensus on, is a pretty solid indicator that you either weren't paying attention or didn't care. Hence our impromptu exit, which was a quick draw response and unexpected even for me but absolutely a direct result of us making it clear in advance that we didn't approve of your entry on anything but defensive terms and you entering anyway.
Was it the right thing to do? One could argue the merits but maintaining a war against KETOG to support your blatant aggression on a separate sphere when we don't share a mutual aggression pact is a pretty messed up double standard, when you consider we made it blatantly clear we didn't approve of that aggression.
We did not form N$O to defend BK. Hilmes agreeing to leave BK off the table as an option despite their repeated pattern of aggression and belligerence against The Syndicate to make you guys feel better about "dropping" them was more than enough to secure them against anything other than their own incompetence.
"4. Months old logs are released, two spheres agree to fight one. N$O agrees as a sphere that this is bad news and that we should do something."
This is just point 3 but reworded and also one of those half truths. We certainly agreed that it was bad news but we definitely didn't agree on the way to proceed. If I had known about your conflicting interests I would have made drastically different decisions but up until you entered, I was offering you guys the benefit of every doubt, and oh boy were there plenty of doubts.
We either agreed or I blew the whole thing up. You can't have your cake and eat it too. We agreed on the problem at face value but it's apparent we didn't see eye to eye on the root causes nor the potential solutions.
"5. Rest is history."
This is true enough, but it's pretty ridiculous for you guys to come up with some narrative that tries to spin your alliance as some good faith actor trying to make minispheres work.
You admitted it yourselves that you never bought into the minispheres idea, and that you prefer bipolarity.
At a certain point it became impossible to trust you with anything, constantly making appeals to your alliance's sovereignty (which is fine) but never respecting anyone else's interests or sovereignty isn't exactly the best model for a healthy partnership.