Yes the Western playbook is well known. I wouldn’t be too quick to trust the Chinese approach though. China has already reclaimed sovereignty over ports via debt trap diplomacy in regions like Sri Lanka.

This certainly is not as bad as American actions on the global stage but China is fairly new to being a global power (in the modern era at least, not historically) so the long term strategy remains to be seen.

This doesn’t have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a “G2”.

China is already an empire that enriches itself at the expense of the rest of the world via its non market practices. Inequal market access / lack of reciprocity have led to deficits that hinder development in many emerging markets. The belt and road initiative and China’s debt to sovereignty swap strategy allows them to build and own key infrastructure / ports around the world similar to US maintaining a global / hegemonic presence with its military bases.

I don’t think China wants to rule the world the way the US does. Its traditionally a very inward looking civilization. But I doubt it has qualms over potentially harming others to enrich itself, which is the case for any empire.