Your take is an interesting one and demonstrates a high degree of insight. The points about war having an economic motive and the trajectory of politics is particularly perceptive. I'm interested in what news sources you consume, if you'd like to share.

You also show an obvious dislike of US / NATO interference, and suggest that it is the only main actor.

However, it's likely there are other actors that are just less "out", yet nevertheless just as active. China (?? does anyone know the name of the relevant division?), for example, and Russia (Alpha Group), are both involved in covert actions around the world hundreds of times per year. Five Eyes intelligence agencies are constantly involved in collaborative operations with each other in a huge range of countries, as well. Added to that, we have said nothing about cyber activities, which are increasingly important. All of these activities are driven by strategic goals, are likely significant, and collectively it is conceivable they do much to move the needle of world affairs, even if they are never covered in the news.

The US may simply have the (unfortunate?) role of being the vanguard or front man for many events or instabilities, when the truth is, there are many other actors involved behind the scenes. In this way US dominance can function in the media as a convenient cover to explain, or blame, but effectively conceal the true power brokers behind the scenes. Such concealment would likely be prudent operational security that the network of hidden actors would seek to actively cultivate.

The US as main actor, while undoubtedly based in truth, may be more of a convenient fiction than is portrayed in the media. This misperception could lead to a degree hatred of the US by some individuals and groups that is not warranted by reality of its activities or influence.

China may not yet be "out" in an overt sense, but I doubt they are any less aggressive, inherently. Their modus operandi right now seems to be pick fights with a thin veneer of plausible deniability: the fentanyl trade and cartel manipulation seems to be a glaring example. An incredibly aggressive action, yet carried out with a kind of shyness that suggests both a will to dominance but a hesitation at the threshold, as if they feel they are not quite ready to be seen to be starting the street fight. So, they'd rather just bump into you on the street, and pretend they weren't looking: "Oh, sorry. Didn't see you there."

But, if challenged would readily use the very pretext they were seeking to create to play the fake victim and start the fight. But not bold enough yet to be seen to start the fight. Even so, in the silence, both parties knew the Chinese had tensed up their shoulder to deliver the blow, showing indeed they had seen you there, and indeed that they had deliberately walked into you with the very intention of starting a fight! Yet had done it by trying to provoke you to start the fight they wanted to have!

Importantly, this kind of behavior shows that they expect the world to part for them, and that they expect the world to yield for them, as they pass through in their self-anointed "rightful position". Likely they feel unhappy with how they feel the world has so far failed to yield for them, in the way that they want it to, feel it "should", and feel "they deserve."

This aggression with deception suggests that they want the dominance and respect, but do not yet feel bold enough to take it, nor scream it in your face that you owe it them.

Instead, they require that you must give them permission first by creating the first initial overt aggression. So, that is what they seek to provoke with their "concealed aggression" strategy: the initial overt aggression.

So while China is clearly an example of an actor that is active, at the same time, this concealed stance clearly displays weakness, and in effect they are making themselves slaved to the permission of another, to achieve what they want. A kind of weird co-dependency, and the wrong path, I think.

This kind of attitude seems to characterise the Chinese culture psyche at this time. They must feel it is nearly time for their dominance, they are chafing at the bit, but they have not yet given themselves permission to take themselves off the leash. They do not yet want to own their actions. So, something is still holding them back. I wonder what it is? A pretext? A red-line provocation? A chance to play 'ultimate victim'? A sense of having truly "earned" their place? I'm not sure.

People often say China will not rush to war, and that any conflict between China and another country, either over Taiwan, or any other issue, is a god-damned long way off. With all that being said, I have a feeling you may seem that act sooner than you think. I initially balked at some seeming hawks estimates of 2025, but now? I think anything could happen. Critical temperature for phase transition is a useful concept here, I think.

Of course, I hope none of this transpires, and everyone just gets along, everyday with mutual respect, consideration and goodness. Please, let that be so. I truly hope they can achieve their healing of past trauma through their own success, and not through seeking or expecting the domination, servitude or tribute of some other.

Despite this, it is clear the Chinese would like to rid themselves of the memories of "sick man of Asia" and "century of humiliation", but may not yet feel ready for outright confrontation, so attempt acting aggressively in a concealed way. These kind of thin concealments may not provide disguise for much longer, and in a very real sense, the tension is clearly and obviously building. In this light, it seems the idea that the US is responsible for provocation entirely is more fantasy than reality.