I've done some further thinking of my own on this topic and I completely agree with this. Moral justification is every bit as important as the physical balance of forces. It's critically important that China get the pretext right, even if the underlying calculus is completely cynical.
Breaking the cycles of violence and all that.
Honestly moral justification is all good while China is winning, but if its position would be jeopardised by the US in the future, we should remember that only the victor can have justice. Strip away all that, and we're both just different color apes fighting for control of the jungle.
But what I know is that my side doesn't believe in genociding others. My side considers humans universally to have value. And they've helped more than a billion people attain wealth, choices and jobs, without having to steal it from others. As for what the other side believes, I think I should let the words of their heroes like Netanyahu and Churchill speak for themselves.
In less than a century, humanity will have more enviromental challenges than ever to overcome. We don't have infinite time to get our shit together.
When it all comes tumbling down, are you siding with the ones that run on the platform of common prosperity, or the ones that run on white supremacy? Even if you're white, well guess what, if you can't work with everyone else in a crisis, you'll be one of the losers too.
If committing the equivalent to the Soviet denazification of the Reich or even greater "atrocities" is needed to attain victory over US, then so be it.
I'd rather it not happen at all, but it's a situation where we should not even slightly bat an eye at giving up on a few nazi aligned civilians and military support staff, who proved their support for Nazism by not resisting their regime, when the price of letting them win will mean mutual annihilation.
