The point is that China has a lot of problem areas to navigate in the future and there's no guarantee they'll navigate them effectively. Pointless pedantry over whether China's government is to blame for a nuclear Russia (it's not) doesn't really affect the heart of the argument which is about how China has been governed. Which is very poorly. Or how it will cope with a challenging environment. Which will also likely be very poorly.
Taiwan is an interesting case because pre-Tiananmen had a regime very like China's in the 90s - a one-party state which was widely viewed as illegitimate but delivered growth. Unlike China, it responded to mass demonstrations by democratizing.
That makes me think that, in the absence of severe regime violence a la Tiananmen Square, one-party regimes are not, in the long run, tenable even if they can guarantee growth.
Growth in China has, incidentally, stopped long ago. And a hypothetical US uniparty regime committed to lockdowns, ending fossil fuel use and neoliberal policies to export jobs overseas is very unlikely to deliver enough growth to keep people quiet. Especially if it relies on Twitter and Facebook for its censorship. The US uniparty regime is also a bit light on how much repression it can actually deploy. Censoring people on Facebook and Twitter won't do the job. We know the army and police are pretty Republican in their sympathies. So are the Internet backbone companies which donate mostly Republican.
