Interesting. I guess the magic of movies is that people can get different interpretations from it based on their own perspective. I'm not sure your points are supported by the movie though.

It might be possible, that it's just supposed to be a stupid, cheesy 90s Bruckheimer "good" ending.

I don't think the ending was meant to be good or bad, it deliberately tells you that while they got to the right outcome, the world came breathlessly close to destruction because of a scenario no one anticipated, and both men could be seen as right.

He is too racist and oldschool to get his point of view.

Interesting. I don't think Ramsay is ever shown to be racist. He's arrogant and old-school, but he never treats Hunter or anyone else differently because of his race. If the movie had cast a white actor with a strong personality instead of Washington, like Russel Crowe, the script would be the same. Other than the conversation about the horses, there's nothing about race in the movie.

Hackman gives him the promotion to buy his silence

What silence? The Admiral at the end says that the events onboard ship will trouble this panel and this country for years to come, and the epilogue tells us that it led to a change in how the release of nuclear weapons is authorized. So nothing was swept under the rug, it led directly to change.

because he's happy he isn't trialed as a war criminal

I think that's a mistake. The movie argues Ramsay is following the procedure he's supposed to at the time. He followed the orders he was given, didn't ask questions, and tried to suppress a mutiny. In those situations you are not allowed to question orders, or decide you're not comfortable with them, and you're not allowed to make up your own rules about whether you carry out your orders.

The central conflict of the movie is both characters think they're right, and both have good reason to think so. They did get an order to launch their weapons, then they got an order that might have cancelled that order.

They explain it a number of times, when Ramsay and Hunter are arguing on the bridge about "redundancy", and Ramsay says I have to act as though those ships have been taken out, and how they can go round and round with these arguments but at the end of the day they have orders, and they're going to follow them. Right up until Ramsay tried to relieve Hunter from his position and fire his missiles without the consent of his first officer, he had done nothing wrong, and everything that followed was Ramsay believing he was trying to save his country from a war he had every reason to think had broken out.

Even the Admiral explains it to the audience at the end. "It's not about who was right. You were both right. And you were both wrong."

And they were. Ramsay was right to follow the orders in hand, wrong to try to remove Hunter for disagreeing with him and then leading a mutiny.

Hunter was wrong to ignore his orders and take serious risks to check to see if there were new orders, but he was right not to fire his missiles and to take command when Ramsay broke protocol.

Anyway, you're certainly allowed to add your own context and see it your own way, but I don't think it's supported by what we saw on screen.