I think you've got the roles backwards, by casting Apple as the US and Google as the Soviet Union.
Apple in fact is being the insular, defensive, Soviet Union character in this relationship now by forging an Iron-Curtain of a closed ecosystem. For example, take maps. Google is going to put maps everything, on the Web, on Android, on iOS, maybe even on Windows 8. Consumers will have the same experience no matter where they go. You see the same with Chrome. And Google will allow anyone to play in their ecosystem with few restrictions.
By contrast, Apple's moves into maps, or their Chrome-like features added to Safari are Apple only. You can't take them outside the Soviet Union.
By adopting a 'love thy enemy' approach, and shipping Google products everywhere and keeping an open ecosystem, you target the citizens of the Iron Curtain even as their government attempts to remove choice.
Apple's "Containment" is like North Korea or East Germany's "self Containment". It's a containment of their own citizens choices, while those outside continue to reach out to everyone.
I think on the issue of not competing with Apple, you've got to realize that Apple is a public company and sooner or later they will reach saturation. When that happened, they would be bound to get into Ads, Search, and the markets of their partners and friends, otherwise the stock would take a nose dive. Google was very forward thinking not to put their entire company at risk by assuming if Apple controls mobile, they will forever not compete in search or ads.