This is like saying the breakup of the USA will make the rest of Americas safer. Maybe but military strength does not directly translate to 'threat' without intent. Some states by their geography, history and technology are naturally more 'powerful'. Does that automatically translate into a threat or the idea that they should be broken up. Who gets to decide this?
This is like positioning Russia creating a SATO with South American States to defend against 'US aggresiveness' and trying to actively break up the US as a 'defensive action'.
Yet this is the kind of foreign policy routinely adopted by the US and 'the west' and yet it's others that are 'aggressive'.