This is just my insight, but I'll let you know how I feel about global politics.
I sympathize with the idea that we need something better or stronger, but I don't see how you can point to the top alliances and blaming the whole group. Let's look at political action in the top 20:
Of the top twenty: MHA, VE, DT, GPA, KoRT, FAN, Fark, NATO, Sparta, and GLoF have opted for a complete status quo for at least the last two years. These are the alliances you should be pointing to when it comes to "starting a fight", because (once we strike out Sparta, KoRT and GPA) they are reserve NS that are only in play if any of the bigger alliances call them in. They are passive actors. NATO/Fark/MHA/ all have direct ties to Oculus, which innately means they will 99% of the time defend and/or support their allies if called upon. The aforementioned but unlisted politically active nations are also directly tied to Oculus, which means they are also going to support and defend their allies. This means we can only look to Oculus members for action with regard to fracturing the political state and creating the global disorder you want to see. It (Oculus) has a supremacy clause though, so you would need to see it fully dissolved and individual treaties dropped for them to take action. This also includes VE/DT/GloF, who could theoretically pursue relations elsewhere and drop and potentially create spheres or whatever. In order to see such a drop, you would need to witness a very powerful political decision fracturing the bloc and ridding it of its "win button" capabilities, which seems unlikely to impossible. NPO IRON and Polaris hold a lot of power as the chief political actors of Oculus, but they have no reason to fracture relations with one another, from what I can tell externally. Why all the focus on Oculus, you ask?
We can see Oculus's innate effect to prevent global war already in the war at hand, where Polaris was totally comfortable entering and activating Oculus on behalf of Kashmir (it appears, or they posture in this manner) while IRON has respectfully avoided tripping it out of respect for Polaris. Perhaps Polaris also has privately or publicly pledged to not activate Oculus in this way, but it isn't apparent to the other political actors on the field (None of which who want the war to expand anyway), that they have this position. If Oculus itself as a bloc had declared neutrality at the start of this minor conflict or any other in the last few years, I believe we would see regional/sub-global wars. We do not see this because of fear of the complete and utter annihilation of our own alliances by our own allies. Take for example, when I was just a lowly GA member in GATO. CoTM was attacked by (I believe) Umbrella and Sengoku rather arbitrarily over aid deals. I opposed this and pressured my government to defend CoTM, but we were assured that Oculus would respond to any direct attacks on itself. We could not defend our ally without fear of our own allies (in Pacifica and Non Grata) from rolling us, and were assured that the swiftest peace for our allies could be earned through diplomacy... This is what I presume has been the historical situation in every Oculus-based war, and it is to be expected out of a monopolar world. I have no qualms with this, and actually am overall supportive of the sort of peace we currently have in the game. I simply do not concur with other players in shifting the blame to non-oculus or directly to Oculus though. Non-Oculus have the ability to attempt to fracture the bloc (which I believe COBRA is attempting with this nonsense war, but failed to do, which is why I now view the war as suicide) and Oculus members have the ability to suspend their supremacy clause and/or declare neutrality at any given conflict or juncture.
The most vital political actors are NPO, IRON, and Polaris; these actors power hinges on their own strengths as alliances but not only on the individual level --- it is the requirement that their partners enter alongside them that solidifies this position as beyond anyone. Even if we disclude the non-political actors, treaty ties and all that jazz -- they are together 615 nations with over 68 million NS -- Committed to only their own side of any given conflict, at war with all the other alliances in the game, they would likely win... If we add their other Oculus partners, it reaches 739 nations with a total of over 80 million NS. Should this supremacy clause alone not exist, I believe we would see more global wars, but who do they benefit? Surely not the communities that are active in the top twenty, and wars wouldn't even benefit the inactive ones either. You could point your finger to earlier and say "what about XX time when this happened" but Oculus had an even larger share of high tier nations and active NS at those times. We live in a monopolar world, and it is up to the dynamics in this bloc to determine global peace or global warfare. I made peace with this over time, and I think the majority of the world has as well. I do think it is possible that we see another global war through other means, but I don't see its aftermath as any positive development. In theory, we can blame the passive actors for doing nothing, the non-oculus political actors for not fracturing Oculus, and the Oculus political actors for not declaring neutrality, when it comes to why we no longer see global wars. However, is this a bad thing?
Tl;dr peace is good and is unlikely to change unless Oculus fractures or people just decide to hurt themselves. The alliance you're in is suicidal. Is peace all that bad?