I fully agree that conflict is always avoidable. What concerns me is that in some circumstances and for some people, conflict is seen as profitable, not just in economic but also in political and even psychological terms. There is clearly a pattern in recent history of following an imaginary logic that justifies conflict, and increasingly disproportionate conflict.
The perception of decline is real. So is the denial of it. And uncertaintly aggravates the effects. The fact that there exists even a vague background sentiment of growing disorder increases the odds of new conflict arising.
The curious fact that worries me the most is the trend of multibillionaires building bunkers in remote places in anticipation of Armageddon!

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I share your concern that perceptions of decline can shape national behavior as much as objective reality. My point was not to dismiss those perceptions, but to caution against treating conflict as inevitable. History shows that when both sides assume the worst about each other’s intentions, the risk of miscalculation rises dramatically. 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. You raise an important point. Having worked in Japan during the U.S.–Japan economic tensions of the 1980s and 1990s, I do see important parallels with today’s U.S.–China competition. At the same time, the differences are equally important—the U.S.–Japan rivalry was primarily economic, while the U.S.–China rivalry is also technological, geopolitical, and strategic. I kept this piece focused on its main theme, but the comparison deserves a separate discussion. Thank you for the suggestion—I hope to explore it in a future essay.