How would we, for example, tell the difference between a great power on the rise naturally testing limits and seeking more global influence and, say, a very large middle power possessed of considerable economic strength but no longer seeing growth measured in orders of magnitude and suddenly, recently concerned that boundless economic gain no longer applies? Wouldn't they look just as belligerent? Wouldn't they be seeking, now, to grab what they can while they still can? Supply chains, territories, control over citizenry... the global impact they will no longer naturally rise toward and must instead use force to acquire.
It used to be that corruption was the older man's game. A lifetime spent eating bitter in expectation of the sweetness to come but finding as the years wore on that really the bitterness just continued and growth wasn't that great, so..... But then corruption became the younger man's game, when growth was exponential and change was too fast and a lifetime of eating bitter counldn't be trusted, not in the face of such obvious sudden wealth.... But then rule of laws appeared and anti-corruption campaigns, and a concerted effort by the powers to stabilise the country... So what of now? What is corruption like now? Does it persist? Has it changed? What's the story of China now?
Impending demographic crisis, explosive growth in exports finishing, an economic transition into the higher end secondary industry kinda slow and super-questionable..... Isn't high tech production a small country's way into global influence? How can a country as large as China transition to high tech industry in any meaningful way without the vastly larger, qualitatively better education sector it won't have?
High tech economic growth has not been anything other than incremental for a long time even in the developed world. What super growth is going to come to China anymore?