It's really Deep Real truths.
The test is whether the help is finite and reciprocal, or whether it is the only thing keeping the partner upright year after year.
First kind is strategy. Second kind is dependency with better branding.
If the partner were viable, it would sustain itself. A hand up, not a permanent subsidy.
It stops being valuable the moment it becomes a transfer payment with flags.
If two alliances provide equal strategic benefits at the same cost, should we judge them differently?
The purpose of this exercise isn’t to tell you which alliances America should keep.
It’s to ask whether you’re applying the same standard.