It seems unlikely that the US administration will get all the money it wants, or be able to spend it the way it wishes. With the United States Congress under Democratic Party control, the general belief is the administration's $4.89 trillion spending plan is dead on arrival.

As some critics at home pointed out, the current administration's 2021 budget sounds more like a campaign document than one that matches US national priorities.

They are not just "a statement of values", as US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi observed. They offer valuable clues about policy orientations, especially if the incumbent US president gets another term in office.

The proposed cuts in spendings on social concerns, from budgets for education to environmental protection to public health to housing and urban development, are US domestic affairs. Perhaps even the proposed increase in military spending. Americans are accustomed to feeling safe by spending vastly more on the military than another country.

What matters though is for what purpose the requested money is intended: The plan to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal and the Pentagon's largest research and development budget in 70 years are reportedly aimed at building next-generation capabilities to confront alleged threats from China and Russia.

Funds for modernizing nuclear weapons alone are expected to rise 18 percent. The proposed creation of a $150 million US uranium reserve, according to US Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, represents a push by the administration to challenge the global expansion of nuclear power development by Chinese and Russian companies.

While cutting traditional development aid overseas, a 22-percent cut to the budgets of the State Department and Agency for International Development, the proposed budget also seeks a substantial boost to the International Development Finance Corporation, which is touted as a provider of financially viable alternatives for developing nations and will finance the development of 5G technologies in those countries.

While the outcome of the Republican and Democrat parties' wrangling over the spending plan remains to be seen, there is little doubt the current US administration is taking its definition of China as a strategic competitor very seriously. And it is likely the notion of preparing for the supposed Chinese and Russian "challenges" will meet little resistance in legislative scrutiny.

Should those countries subscribe to the confrontational approach being laid out by the US administration, bilateral relations will see increasing difficulties in the years to come.

China needs to be prepared for the US to ramp up the pressure on it. It should not let itself get sucked into an arms race by a US administration that sees such a tactic as the way to halt the development of a rival. China should bear in mind that it has time on its side.