Conflict (and war) is dispute resolution. Conflict is not inherently wrong, nor is resolving conflict. Conflict happens when someone attempts to use dominance to get their way and someone does not choose to submit, but submission does not hide the use of dominance. If there is someone who dominates and someone who submits "peacefully" that does not mean there was no violence. We call that coercion.

Conflict to resolve a dispute when one party is coerced is justified.

If a slave killed their master, they are resolving the dispute of whether a slave is a person or property. If Russia says Ukraine is not a country and Ukraine says yes we are, Ukrainians are not in the wrong for asserting themselves. If someone taxes you but doesn't give you the benefit of that tax money, then conflict to stop the theft is justified (revolutionary war).

So where you see conflict and think conflict is bad, I see conflict as a possible force for good. I don't want the US to become a corporate dystopia, but we are most definitely headed in that direction and that is a good conflict to have. I don't want China to be an ethno fascist state, but china is headed in that direction (and I personally believe they are already there), and putting a stop to that is a good conflict to have.

You have the privilege of saying china is not a villian, but if you put yourself in the shoes of Uighurs, people from Hong Kong, Tibetans or Taiwanese citizens rather than in privileged shoes, I think you would come to a different conclusion.

> People in China are generally happy

And that is the point. When you say people, you are referring to Han people. That's the ethno in ethno-fascist.

> The arsenal democracy is absolutely insane. The world doesn't need this.

I absolutely disagree. Sometimes your only choice is fight or submit, and I would rather live free than die a slave.