True, but it's only part of the truth. There are two main things.
First, reverse engineering was a thing everywhere back in the days, but blaming Soviets so hardly in this is, consciously or unconsciously, a good mean to hide the opposite (captured MiG-25 anyone? Or the sold blueprints of Yak-141 to influence the F-35B later? For instance), just like a typical move used by every propaganda: claim yourself as a victim and hope thus nobody notice you did exactly the same to your opponent you presented as the abuser. No conspiracy intended.
Second, for anyone savvy on the subject this is kinda graceless to assume that if USSR copied one thing that every other thing you encounter is a priori a copy if it has even a sligtest resemblance to the pre-existing thing (or not even the pre-existing, remembering Tu-144 vs Concorde, I still hardly even grasp the logic of the people who went as far as claiming that the "copy" came BEFORE the "original").
This is a simple presumption of guilt which is never appropriate.
Spaeking of Fairbanks-Morse, the charging (actually, drewb, they used mechanical chargers and not the gas-turbine ones, which was part of the problem) it to 3000 HP was, and still is, a disaster, the 10D100 is exactly opposite of reliable and to tune it to the normal performance is almost impossible. That's why TE10s on your pis use the very successful Soviet (originally designed, BTW. Hear that? Originally! LOL
) 5D49 V16 4-stroke turbodiesels.
In the end, I agree, reverse engineering is a blessing for the progress as a whole. But seeing it everywhere isn't right, regardless of implications.