I think that in order for a person to come to the conclusions that you have above, one has to first start with the assumption that the Apostle Paul is a false apostle. I think that in order for one to even remotely get to where you are on the above, that one has to already believe that Paul was a false apostle. There’s no other reason to say that Revelation 2 is speaking about Paul specifically. I think you’re reading into the text what you want to be true, and you’re starting with the assumption that the Apostle Paul is a false apostle in order to get there.
Paul does refer to certain believers in the province of Asia (which is modern-day Turkey). He did a lotta missionary work there, including the city of Ephesus (that’s where Timothy was when Paul wrote this letter). During Nero's persecution of Christians, there were evidently many Christians that attempted to distance themselves from Paul after his arrest by Nero. That’s a pretty normal reaction for people hoping to avoid a similar fate.
I began with the assumption that Paul was valid and the real deal although I did find him a bit confusing. I started reading the Bible much more in depth after I got a job that required me to hide out on surveillance for long hours and then started taking it with me while I hunted deer for hours at at time from a blind/stand. After I read from other sources that there was quite a controversy over Paul in the early church (prior to his trip to Rome) and read the history of Christianity being spread by terror and force (the catholics and even the Calvinists, Lutherans, etc) I began to wonder. So no, I didn't come in thinking Paul was a fraud.
For all I know some of the writings attributed to Paul were added to, redacted, or forged.
Also, we don't know from historical record what became of Paul, but for a time he is recorded as having a good bit of freedom after he decamped to Rome.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
