> Sacking a top general is basically par for the course

Yes and no. Military readiness and potency doesn’t require liberal democracy. It does require skill and command, and sacking military leaders for political reasons is how powers from Athens to the Soviets screwed themselves.

Yeah but the question of stability was relative to the Soviets. The US has a good amount of instability as well, and has been hemorrhaging scientists lately.

So if the argument is that sacking a top general implies that China is too unstable to prevail in a future space race I don’t buy it.

Except generals get sacked all the time in actual wartime conditions, it's not even clear why this particular instance is notable.

China isn't in wartime, it is in a build up phase and there's perfectly good reasons to dismiss underperforming generals.

Which isn't to say that's what happened here, but China sacking a general as a data point doesn't mean anything without appropriate context.