This is absolutely just her drumming up a case for intervention. She sees China's B&R as an existential threat to the US and see the entirety of South America as nothing more than raw material.

Chinese investment is really extraction, Richardson said. Not just in terms of cash or natural resources, but also strategic positions. The general described a recent flight over the Panama Canal where she saw Chinese state-owned enterprises on both sides of the canal that could be turned quickly toward military capabilities.

"I think we should be concerned, but this is a global problem," she said.

it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.

Yes. The German state at the time was antagonistic to the proletariat. The Feudal state in Germany was in the process of transferring power to the bourgeoisie and that process didn't end up happening until after WW1 because the German revolution failed. The goal of the manifesto was to solidify that the new German state post revolution would be worker controlled and not controlled by the new German industrial bourgeoisie.

This quote says nothing about "The State" as a concept or entity being bourgeois, only that the state is an opressive/antagonistic force that is currently bourgeois.

If you want to try and claim that Marx said "All States are Bourgeois", you're going to need to dig a lot deeper than the Manifesto and you'll not find any consistent answer as his views on that changed throughout his life and after the revolutionary movements in Germany (Revolutions of 1848 the first failure and when the Manifesto was written), America (Civil War 1865 see The Civil War in the United States), and France (Paris Commune 1871 see The Civil War in France).

As he saw how the bourgeois power structures maintained themselves through these successive revolutions, he began to become much more clear on the role of a workers state in maintaining the revolutionary movement.

The hurdle a lot of illiterate liberals have to get over when they read Marx is that his use of oppressive isn't a moral assertion, it's a dialectic.

Yes, a state is opressive. It is the oppression of one class for the benefit of another. As long as a state exists, there is an existing class divide in the place that state exists.

Do you think the bourgeoisie care that the state is oppressive? No. Because the current form of the state serves their interests. Should workers care that a bourgeois state is opressive? Yes. Because a bourgeois state will actively sabotage any attempt by the body of labor to free itself.

As long as this dynamic exists (either domestically or internationally) states will continue to exist, and the form of that state will take on the character of the class that controls it.

In "The Civil War in France" Marx directly condems the revolutionaries (though respects their lofty aims) for not taking over the State in Paris. For not opening the banks, exploiting the existing power structure, and then destroying the bridge behind them. The Paris Commune is one of the first direct examples of a suddenly stateless society failing in the face of an organized bourgeois state.

If you want a socialist project to survive, you have to learn from the mistakes of the Parisians and take hold of power and use the oppressive nature of the state to cement the new order or you risk reactionary movements that aren't afraid to wield that oppressive power destroying all you've built.

And this is a hard thing for liberals to get their heads around because it's something that Marx changed opinions on the second he saw what had happened in Paris. Unlike most liberal political economists who are dogmatic in their beliefs and theories, Marx was driven primarily by the state of things and analysis of reality. His theories changed as he saw them practiced.