Right but there’s a difference between “X is bad because China is the one doing X” and “X is bad for reasons A, B, C that would also apply if it were not China doing X”

> “X is bad for reasons A, B, C that would also apply if it were not China doing X”

Reasons A, B, and C can (and should) acknowledge the beneficiary of the thing that is being done.

If the beneficiary is power-hungry and genocidal, that is a valid reason for "thing" to be a bad idea.

Similarly, it's better for, let's say, Norway to become a nuclear power than for North Korea to become a nuclear power.

The accumulation of military power by a non-aggressive democracy is less dangerous than by an authoritarian regime that has shown recent interest in conquest.