Competitor != adversary. It is US warmongering ideology that tries to equate these concepts.

That is just objectively incorrect, and fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of statehood. China, the US, and any other local monopoly on force would absolutely take any chance they could get to extend their influence and diminish the others. That is they are acting rationally to at minimum maximise the probability they are able to maintain their current monopolies on force.

▲

jrflowers an hour ago | parent [-]

Isn’t every country by definition a “local monopoly on force”? Sweden and Norway have their own militaries and police forces and neither would take kindly to an invasion from the other. By your definition this makes them adversaries or enemies.

	▲	kriops an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly. I am Norwegian myself, and I don’t even know how many wars we have had with Sweden and Denmark. If you are getting at the fact that it is sometimes beneficial for adversaries to collaborate (e.g., the prisoner dilemma) then I agree. And indeed, both Norway and Sweden would be completely lost if they declared war on the other tomorrow. But it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the relationship.

▲

delaminator an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

you clearly haven't been paying attention

remember when the US bugged EU leader's phones, including Merkel from 2002 to 2013?