Redhat has been profitable for years. Their success is what prompted the large purchase price by IBM. This is not even in question.
IBM likely told Redhat execs that they needed to increase profitability -- without laying out a plan. Redhat likely decided to go after the low hanging fruit by cutting off anyone that was costing them the sale of a support contract, such as Oracle. The smaller entities of Rocky and Alma are simpky collateral damage.
Redhat had been disingenuous with their response when they say IBM is not behind the move. IBM likely set down the edict. Redhat decided the course.
Redhat's remarks about adding value is a blatant lie, IMHO. We know this because Linux isn't the distro itself. A distro is the compilation of pieces making up the whole. These pieces are taken and used and distributed by Redhat while adding almost no value to those individual pieces. This is exactly the claim Redhat makes against Alma and Ricky. Redhat takes individual programs and adds them to their distro without adding any additional value to them, nor even to the overall purpose and use of them. Adding them to the Redhat distro is not adding additional value in and of itself. What Redhat is doing is nothing more than what Rocky and Alma (and Oracle) are doing.
I would propose that the idea of adding a 3rd party provider helps the spread and acceptance of open source, even if IBM's profit advancement is restrained. In the long run IBM will benefit far more than they would with the short term profit increases.
IMHO, this makes their arguments disingenuous and specious.