Oggie, I think the line quoted above is where your argument really falls apart. You miss (or misunderstand) the obvious truth, and that is that treaties are political instruments. You do not need a treaty to "do the right thing." You do not need a treaty to be "friends." As individuals, we enter into friendships with other individuals for emotional and deeply personal reasons. We enter into treaties between large groups of disparate individuals to secure strategic advantage.
The idea that every member of INT is friends with every member of ODN, for example, is absurd. As an alliance, we have certain shared goals, and we each see a particular advantage in binding ourselves in a contract. That's why there are different classes of treaties (NAP, ODP, MDP, etc.), and that is why alliances often negotiate on the verbiage of those agreements.
I have close friends in so-called "enemy" alliances, and there are certain people I absolutely despise in some alliances with whom INT holds strong treaties. I don't see any contradiction, cynicism, or dishonor in this.
At some point, you must be mature enough to accept that your strategic goals will not always align with those held by a friend. It doesn't diminish the friendship and it doesn't dehumanize or reduce anyone to a statistic.