If I understand you, the basic foundation is spot on in terms of reflecting what I was trying to convey. In terms of application to U.S. policy, I am not as sure. While the system dynamics are beyond my intellectual pay grade to properly analyze, I do know lopsided relationships that are not based on a mutually sustainable beneficial exchange, (beneficial defined as adding nourishing or defensive strength to the system) but instead tends toward the parasitic and predatory end, weakening one entity for the sake of the other, even if the entity being weakened is a strong one, is not a long term strategy for system stability. Some relationships bear fruit, meaning they return greater than the cost, and others do not. We need to find and operate in that cultivated fruitful space as far as i can tell. What exactly that should look like in these cases, I am not sure. I am not in the room so to speak.
We do have to find a way to have each other's backs if we are to maximize strength, my guess is how these types of things get spun through various "news" media outlets bears little if any relation to the truth so I would not count that as authentic information. I would say the ultimate contribution to our objective experience will depend on how well the actual relationship gravitates to an economy of common nourishment and defense. How it is perceived and how that affects our subjective experience is another matter.
I could be missing something(s)