I wonder whats more profitable? Destabilization of major global (read: strategic/tactical capabilities wrt nuclear weapons) belligerents from "internal struggle

I wonder whats more profitable? Destabilization of major global (read: strategic/tactical capabilities wrt nuclear weapons) belligerents from "internal struggle", or engaging in endeavors that pit such belligerents against one another? If a rational actor had to pick their poison (if one is maximizing for profit, one needs to live long enough or in a environment that well better support/help realize such), I'd suspect they'd pick the former, then use/co-opt the appropriate the effective popular indoctrination/social dogmas in such respective countries to foster such ends as a force multiplier. Maybe more drawn out than proxy war to MAD campaign, but less is at risk tactically along the way (setting aside spontaneous break out of ICBM volleys in response to extended amazon 404's for a period of time, or something on such similar level) to achieve relatively similar strategic aims "governments" usually have their eyes on if they are in position of relative power asymmetry they can leverage agaisnt others towards economic gains.