The comments you made about political systems indicate you don't really grasp my point.

- Governments are formed of people. People make mistakes.

- Power tends to corrupt, and the likelihood of corruption scales with the quantity of power and the quantity of people passing through the role (that is, one person may truly have best interests at heart, but will their successor? Or their successor?)

The result of the above is that when assessing long term stability of systems, problems that can happen inevitably will. If a system allows massive sweeping changes, then they will happen, and eventually an incorrect one will be made.

For example, let's take the scenario above, where Chinese companies were ordered to begin using Chinese GPUs. Did that work out? Yes. Could it have gone poorly? Yes.

Will every similar decision go as well? No. Thus, a situation where the "you must use Chinese GPUs" dictation is possible, is less stable than one where it is not.

You brought up a comparison to the US, because the US and China always get compared I guess? The US does this sort of thing more weakly, so gains less instability from this particular source of instability. Whether it's currently more unstable in other ways is left as an exercise for the reader.