The US's moral reputation has been dragged through the mud throughout the entirety of its existence, but that didn't stop it from ascending to the power it became after WWII. Similarly, its decline today isn't the result of the constant train of crimes it's committed since its inception. It's declining because of changing economic and military trends; it's declining because China is rising.
Pointing fingers at the US, castigating it for its criminal actions, and "owning" it on social media is fun and makes us feel good, but it doesn't diminish the US in any meaningful way. China's rise does.
Having said that, China wouldn't suffer any moral injury as a result of declaring a clear policy about the acceptable strategic orientation of neighbouring countries (either aligning with China or remaining neutral, with no foreign alliances) and being willing to enforce that policy with force.
Drawing a clear red line in a very reasonable place to defend its national security interests does China no moral injury and doesn't stain its reputation with the Global South, either with the elites or publics of those countries. The libs in those countries would cry, but they cry about everything China does anyway.
It's more nuanced than that. What I'm saying is that to people in the Global South - like people everywhere - "right or wrong" is subjective and secondary to national and personal interest. Even if China's actions went against their moral code, they would rationalize it and explain it away because maintaining a good relationship with China is in their interest. They would act like European countries do in their alliance with the US - the US does far worse than China would ever do even if it were more aggressive than I suggest, yet the NATO alliance remains ironclad and cooperation with the US continues.
Cuba and Gaza are completely different cases. Cuba was punished during the Cold War because of the US's ideological anti-Communist fanaticism and it continues today because of inertia and spite. The only legitimate cause the US had to take hostile action against Cuba was when it hosted Soviet nuclear weapons. Gaza is a concentration camp for people Israel dispossessed of their land. The world condemns these actions and rightly so.
China insisting countries around it not host foreign military forces or enter into hostile military alliances designed to contain it is completely different.
I should clarify that I don't advocate that China adopt such a policy now as it's not strong enough to enforce it now. I suspect our view on what China should do in the short and medium term would be identical: keep building. As for the whole world, I see the Global South as being on China's side no matter what, since having a strong and wealthy partner that has no hostility toward them will always be in their interest.
You've stated your admiration for Russia on several occasions, and I recall you saying that President Putin was your favourite leader after President Xi. What do you make of Russia's invasion of Ukraine? This is a clear-cut act of aggression by your standards. Ukraine did nothing unacceptable by exercising its sovereignty in choosing to join NATO and host troops from countries hostile to Russia.
How did the Global South react? Aside from some customary condemnation at the UNGA, and a very eloquent speech by the Kenyan ambassador at the UNSC, the reaction has ranged from disinterest to outright support for Russia. If they're upset by anything, it's rising food prices as a result of the war. Outside the liberal bubbles, there's no condemnation for Russia's actions. If anything, they're happy the West took a hit.
It's never that simple and clear-cut. There are always caveats.
They have no such right and stating this does not make it gangster logic. They have no right to threaten China's national security by participating in alliances aimed at containing and threatening China. Gangster logic would be if China threatened them with force if they didn't sign favourable trade agreements with it or privilege its commercial and economic interests, which I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see is not what I'm advocating. Gangster logic would be if China mandated that the Japanese Communist Party govern Japan. That isn't what I'm advocating either.
To be perfectly clear, if they still refuse to respect China's security, then they will get their fingers broken and houses set on fire. If you think it's gangster logic for China to defend this legitimate and critical interest even at the expense of others' sovereignty, so be it.
What the CPC says and thinks has changed drastically over the years and I don't see why that would stop. It's true that the Chinese public's current view is broadly "go along to get along", but that's also changed drastically over the years. There's been a notable rise in what the US calls "nationalism" - which is really just self-respect and national pride - in recent years and I expect that to continue.
Even today, there's no outright rejection of the use of force to defend China's national interest, even if it impinges on the sovereignty of others.
I cannot overstate how profoundly I disagree with this. There is no absolute principle in international relations, not even sovereignty which is the closest thing there is to it. Sovereignty is not absolute.
The problem isn't that I hate the dude, the problem is the dude wants to kill me. If my neighbour has the right to invite whomever he pleases into his home, my right to self-defence trumps his right and I will enforce that right with violence if need be. Yes, I agree that I should try everything else first, I should try to be nicer to him, invest in his company, cajole him, threaten him, whatever.
But if all else fails, I have a higher right than his right to free association to grab my rifle and open fire on him and his friend. If the rest of the neighbourhood has a problem with it, I can tell them with a clear conscience that I tried everything with him, that it had to be done, and that there are no problems between me and them.
