Seriously, you think this is a dev/team issue? You never once question the incentives at play here? I'd have not been surprised by the standard "throw the engineers under the bus" response from someone outside tech, but if you work in the space, I would have expected better.
You nail it in sentence two. THE COMPANY chose to use azure. You do not. As VPs/Directors have told me on multiple occasions "we sell to the decision makers." And with how short-term decision making is for most companies, ESPECIALLY large/public ones, it's very easy to make that sale via "no one ever got fired for..."/bundle deals/incentives/etc.
I have seen MANY very capable and well intentioned devs damage their careers trying to fight this. I fully agree there should be accountability, and I wish more customers cared about this dimension, but at the end of the day it's going to be a heads-we-win tails-you-lose situation for devs so at least try to be empathetic in that respect, and ideally hold the RIGHT people accountable, ala upper leadership/corporate buyers/investors, which I doubt will happen because of MS's scale/market power. (To be clear, it's lose-lose for us in that when something bubbles up enough that it actually hits MS in the wallet they flip on a dime from refusing to staff anything that isn't feature work and force devs to do MASSIVE amounts of makework to show that they're "investing in that area" without actually lessening other obligations; see the recent 'security push'. That's honestly why you see tickets don't move, no one has spare cycles to spend on anything that isn't a leadership priority or something we're going to get in trouble for if we don't do; we're all largely overworked just with that, ESPECIALLY given the return of stack-ranking and the culture that entails.)
I could write another whole essay about the kafkaesque support agent situation, your statement of "eager but unhelpful" is correct on the first part and _far too kind_ to the latter part, but my main thought is well-contained enough that I'd like to not muddy it outside of noting that "yes, that is a disaster, and you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg."