tbf it's a reasonable enough assessment. i think one thing a lot of people don't know is that agenda 2025 or project 2030 or whatever it is seeks to make senior civil service positions throughout the usa's federal government political appointments. ordinarily any major change sought by a party political government is pushed back on by civil servants and it takes time to wear down the resistance, which is only granted if the party keeps getting elected. with political appointments across thousands of civil service roles instead of civil servants who are generally conservative as in they seek to maintain the status quo you will have senior civil servants who do what they're told when they're told. this removes the protection granted by length of incumbency's relationship to change achieved. it would be like removing the crumple zone from your car, instead of impacts being absorbed by a status quo preserving body, the crumple zone, all the shock of the impact is transferred to your organs. regarding the china/russia moves described i think those are plausible too. china wants taiwan. china has a big stick. russia wants pretty much everything it can gobble up. russia has a big stick. regarding sticks, iirc russia and the usa have ~10k nukes each. china has about 400, everywhere else has between a few hundred each and a few dozen. if the usa stops playing the game completely nobody has the nuclear response capability to scare russia in to a mutually assured destruction scenario, russia would absolutely be happy to tank ~1,000 nukes in order to take all of europe, and that's before we get in to the fact china will take some too. it's tempting to think that a nuclear strike will jolt the usa in to action even if it tries to go hard in to isolationism, but it won't. before the first nuke there's nothing to respond to, after the first nuke the game changes, everyone is scared, pictures and videos of the severe torture of death by radiation come out.
United Kingdom