Well, the difference is that USSR didn't hold most of the economical and technological cards vs the US, while China does.The problem with Brezhnev was that he was a people-pleaser that did not want to rock the boat and make the nessasary reforms. By the 70s the Soviet command economy was suffering from low efficiency compared to free market + government guidance (ie Japanese economy), and in need of industrial upgrading. Instead of reforms and upgrading from a heavy-industry based economy to high-tech one, Brezhnev used engaged in all-spectrum proxy war with US across the world. USSR + Eastern bloc was already on the short end of economic stick against the collective West, and this massively sapped Soviet economic strength further and as a result USSR failed to become a high-tech economic power.
This is exactly the game US wants China to play. And this is why I despise comments that demand China to do everything it can to topple US, to interfere in affairs of other countries, or to create military alliances. All of these create massive geopolitical cesspools which will sap Chinese resources away from economic and technological development, which is exactly what US want.
The right amount of action, not overcommitting or undercommitting, can cause massive headaches to US without costing China too much.
China can both maintain its tech + economy lead and still attack US at the same time, as long as it does it in a non stupid way (not like EU attacking Russia for example).