I believe that was in reference to so-called developed first world nations, and the argued double standards that citizens of these countries demonstrate when they criticize China of anything (like I did above).

Actually, more about growing pains of developing nations. Less so about hypocrisy. Learning curve of excrementing in own diaper before learning to flush.

In the deserts you spoke of, life is usually sparse. Short-lived when in bloom. A spectacle, yes.

Yet flora diversity by natural selection can't feed a nation. We can't rely on rare monsoons that momentarily turn barren deserts green.

Sustaining human populations requires human intervention.

Be it artificial selection such as time-tested agricultural revolution, GMO, or thwarting invasive species.

Invasive species that threaten to collapse entire ecosystems at the macro, habitat level. As well as combating invasive plaques and outbreaks at the micro, cellular level. And controversially, at the societal level by rooting out invasive ideological seeds of extremism with algorithmic plows.

Our intrinsic ability to harness nature is the reason human beings have survived. Even thrived, for better or for worse. Without which, extinction wasn't far for our ancestors.

Cultivating the environment is to seize fate in own tilling hands.

Be it harvesting lotus roots every season at Green Lake prior to accommodating arrival of Siberian seagulls. Or reaping the bilateral, economic fruits of connecting BRI rail tracks through once insurmountable land barriers with neighboring rivals. A ripe transformation from building Great Walls centuries earlier.

As mentioned, a learning curve.

Like the maturation process of the States, previous hegemonic Roman and Ottoman empires relied on slavery for growth, let alone genocides of the indigenous. Hegemonic conquests are the extensions of our internal psyche. Particularly those of de facto leaders of reign.

Only time will tell if muddy history of civil rights, which pervaded western colonialism, their slave trade ancestry, and descendants of segregation, will dissolve entirely. Or become renewed in another form.

How an aspiring hegemony like China evolve from mud to lotus pond is yet to be seen.

But one constant in the universe is impermanence and change. Flowers wither below like stars above. Fair or fascist leaders come and go. Their empires rise and fall. If you look further back and forward in scope of time.

Myanmar and Pakistan may bare fruits from mud if you give them time and nutrients to grow.

The cultivation of BRI could be the light, allowing them the opportunity to flourish as flowers. But if leaders/nations depend solely on entropy to cast the dice, dormant seeds of deserts may remain unawakened indefinitely. Or worst, become cesspools for invasive growth that spread far beyond borders.

Fantastically written YaXu, I think you hit the nail on the head in respect to how developing countries must see this grand project of the century. It's an alluring alternative to the IMF/World Bank backed western model, with an emphasis on (at least for the time being) maintaining sovereignty and self-determination whilst getting more affordable and quick infrastructure they desperately need for development.
The flashpoints made most often made by western media (the few times that they even acknowledge the BRI's existence) are sorely shortsighted... and can really be summed up by the American vice president Mike Pence's speech last year on China: "The United States deals openly and fairly – and we don’t offer a constricting belt or a one-way road."

Pandora's box has been opened with this initiative, and while it makes sense that America, as an isolated continent, lambasts it as much as possible, Europe on the other hand is certainly poised to benefit greatly financially as well as geopolitically through this endeavor.
There are American think-tanks putting out quite a few white papers (notably CSIS) calling for engagement and competition in this new realm of investment geopolitics, and I think that ultimately those voices will win out due to the long-term implications.

Many of these countries that have been ignored, or worse, targeted and economically vassalized by western countries serve to win in the medium term.

I encourage the western media to (despite the hypocrisy) continue to shed light on anything that points to these countries relinquishing sovereignty in any shape or form from the BRI, so as to scrutinize that behavior on the multipolar world stage... But whining about it isn't a long term strategy. Now that there's an actual competitor in this sphere for the first time in centuries, it's time to swallow our pride and restructure the system we have in order to make it an appealing alternative.

People in these countries still only want China's money, and everything else from west.

Only exception may be individuals in power, who want to maintain that power in order to pocket more of the money - to spend on more western stuff than the average citizens they are supposed to govern.

A question: who dominates? Which nation, government, region, subregion, class or economic interest or ethnicity, national or otherwise?
Note the competitive environment - who benefits vis-a-vis whom?.
Yaxu: mud, lotuses? I'm unclear about the references of your metaphors.

People want a roof over their heads, food on their plates, and a job that affords them to get education and creature comforts for them and their families. That's the platform needed to even understand and consider the lofty aspirations of freedom and democracy embedded into every Hollywood film. The vibrant and thriving democracies of Asia all have one thing in common: they were all autocracies throughout the vast majority of their development stage. They also heavily protected their industries through tarrifs and the like in order to help them develop.
The idea that every street beggar in these poor and developing nation's heart yearns for the ability to to cast a ballot into a box is the foundation to the rhetoric of our Public Relations Department arm of the economic imperialism branch, and boy is it an amazing sell. It has , in our hearts, justified so much of our brutal hegemonic actions for generations now, and still continues to resonate with most people. But for all the nations that have felt what it means to become a "free-market" democracy overnight, well, they don't exactly have the greatest opinion about it, as so many of them still have yet to fulfill their basic desires I listed on the top. Having their industries be eaten up by force by western corporations makes it hard for them to get the jobs they need, or the government assistance they need, to live a comfortable enough life to consider which president would be a better fit for them.
From this perspective I gotta say, that they definitely do want Chinese money, but westerners are the ones that want them to have everything else from the west.
But the thing is, due to the BRI, the calculus has changed. If we want them to have what we want, we have to adapt to the new status quo: show that our value system is more than a theme from a movie. Actions speak much, much louder than words, and the fact that so many countries are on board with this geopolitical undertaking means that they like what it offers.
If we want to keep up with the rhetoric we hold dear in our hearts, we should respond not with bellicose threats, sanctions and digital subterfuge, but with investment and partnership in order to first give those street beggars the foundation they need, as well as pave the road to giving them a voice in government.

Who dominates? As stated by the US government last year, we are entering an era of great power competition, so for these developing nations there is ample opportunity to play the two superpowers off of each other, and give them enough room to dominate the brutal poverty that has left their people out of the light from the industrial revolution. In time though, the poles of power will become more solidified, and domination will be decided by whichever superpower is the closest to them. As YaXu said, the way China will dominate is yet to be seen, but if we look at history, I think eventually "win-win" benevolence will eventually give way to a more "hands on" approach.

"People want a roof over their heads, food on their plates, and a job that affords them to get education and creature comforts for them and their families"

Yes, and if the people were given the opportinities to pursue these goals, they would have had it decades ago. This applies especially in China itself.

Your commentary shows how China is using BRI as a vehicle to sell its own ideologies, and to somehow validate the political choices of its ruling class.

What the people want, and what their own governments are prepared to, or able to, give them often varies.

Political choices of China's ruling class are the root causes why Chinese people lacked the said roofs, foods, and educations so long. Choices based on ideologies that were imported from abroad nonetheless.

While China was busy doing that, western societies developed further. Had they not, China's leaders wouldn't have gotten such aspirations either.

China only got big because the leaders in China had something to look up to, and reach to.

And this is what fuels BRI also. Interaction with wealthier countries (including China) to look up to, and reach to.

But bad political choices can render it all useless to overall development of a nation. Roads and railways to transport goods don't help if the money goes to pockets of privileged elites.

But why would China care about that? It serves China's own geopolitical interests to see its neighbours and even distant countries not grow to their full potential - just like China will not unless it changes its political course.

But a moderate success often makes achieving less than full potential an accceptable option.

Ruling classes, superpowers, yep.
Vibrant democracies?
'Development', 'success': we, our, us, they, them...who?
'...if we want them to want what we want...' - more of the same?

Roofs, food, yes, of course, but 'win-win' is a slogan promoted from the top. Our brains (those of species members) have been colonized.
Hope BRI (a buzzword) helps real people on the ground as the rules keep being changed by the shifting and shifty dominants up in the air. Too much optimism is dangerous.