> Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo

At the state level, often. At the individual level, I don't think so.

My pet war is Ukraine. I don't have any personal stake in the war. I just think it's abhorrent and poses a long-term risk to the security interests of places and people I care about. I can construct that into a narrative of fulfilling American geopolitical interests, but that's an exercise I'd be engaging in after I'd come to my view based on, essentially, a moral preference.

That preference is real. But it's mine and far from universal. That someone thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine is frankly irrelevant to the validity of their statements on other matters. That's where I'm calling bullshit on this connection.

You are missing quite a bit. It is not obviously quid pro quo in diplomatic relations but on that point you are partially correct. If the US for one reason or another cuts ties with Israel, it loses its main influence in the middle east and other countries would probably quite happily pick up the tap. Only some are from the region, others are not.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with Larry Ellison and frankly this whole thread is mostly idiotic. It could have been an interesting topic but some seem to have other priorities. Which are quite transparent.