Lots of these revalations are being published by a non-US security company. The US security companies have either missed these security issues, deliberately ignored them, or have been forced to keep them secret. In my opinion, the fact that there are still some non-US IT security companies is a good thing.
Also for having the upper hand in negotiations and forcing the lesser states and their politicians to do as you please...
Which is much more important than some BS need for "diplomatic stability" without any other major player like USSR around, except maybe with China.
If you're the 10,000-pound gorilla you don't get instabilized by the small 10 pound zoo animals...
That's not always true for either countries[1] or animals[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_British_coloni...
It's not like some small nation came and took Wales from the UK -- which would be actual de-stabilizing.
Megarians doused some pigs with combustible pitch, crude oil or resin, set them alight, and drove them towards the enemy's massed war elephants. The elephants bolted in terror from the flaming, squealing pigs, often killing great numbers of their own soldiers by trampling them to death.
From of foreign policy standpoint it's often less about the entire country vs small groups of well-connected people with foreign interests. In the end most of what the US government does is easier to understand when you reolise and account for just how corrupt it is.
EX: US immigration policy seems vary reasonable when you reolise exploting both legal and illigal immigrants makes some people lot's of money.
That's what "diplomatic stability" means.
Its especially interesting that the mere assumption that the US security companies are covering for the intel agencies is going to make it look more like they are. If Kaspersky is on 90% of the computers targeted by the NSA/CIA, they're going to be much more likely to get the data necessary for this kind of analysis, which reinforces the thought that the US companies might be covering it up.