I call BS, too many places this does not fit.
Being widely despised by the Chinese people for corruption and lack of democracy and rule of law, and with economic performance faltering, the communist regime must inevitably emphasize nationalistic themes as a basis of legitimacy. The depiction of foreigners as dangerous and untrustworthy is a long established element of Chinese nationalism.
Nixon was the man with enough foreign policy savvy to realize that a fullblown war between the two Asian behemoths would be a worldwide catastrophe. This is why the Chinese had great respect for Nixon, despite his antipathy to communism.
I got taught this twenty years past (American sources), save for the threat of US nuc lear threats. At the time, the analysis was that the US were tempted but too smart to stand by and watch the Sovs destroy China. In a three way conflict, you always assist or prevent the destruction of the weakest member. Had the Sovs been allowed to take out China then:
A - The US would have been partners (albeit through inaction) in a bloody crime, because I doubt the Sovs could have done it without a few nukes in civilian zones and millions dead
and
B - The USSR would have had the luxury of not having to be nervous about their horrendously long land border with China, or with China’s influence over the international communist groups. That would have simplified Soviet strategic needs greatly, to the detriment of the west.
China and the US had nothing in common politically save distrust of the Soviets, but without China the Sovs would have been a much more credible threat. Even though China never matched Russia remotely in terms of strngth, they had the North Korean factor - e.g. the Russians were never sure what that crazy old bastard Mao would do, so they had to be given either careful treatment or all-out treatment.