>>45011
>Well of course
So we agree that submission is what was demanded. Good that you recognize the nature of the "rules" that a country is supposed to play by. It doesn't mean it is good to just accept them. And for China (or Russia etc.) it isn't. The US does not accept a multipolar world, so dangerous "negotiations" are under way
>any nation would want that
No. It is no "nation", it is effectively an empire. Furthermore, like all past empires eventually did, it is actually eating its own core nation, loosing itself as it stubbornly tries to hold on to the world
>it's a euphemism of the status quo if anything
Which since the collapse of the USSR has been that of unchallenged US hegemony. Another admission, good! Now the contradictions in your reply will be clear if you just connect the dots.
>only hurts their cause.
Jury is still out on this. It may be that they will hurt more for their troubles, or maybe people on both sides will stop, sit and talk before a war breaks out, and a new beneficial "order" will be agreed, instead of one side demanding obedience from the other
>Illegally claiming
The "rules-based international world order" is US hegemony. When that hegemony is challenged, those "rules" are being challenged. That's the core of the illegality. The far-away western colonial powers illegally claimed far far more than artificial island and surrounding waters. I'm not saying China gets to claim whatever it wants, I'm saying it is an obvious response at finding oneself encircled. Things change, the US refused to accommodate. Escalation ensued
>made the rest of the world
Not really, the world minus China is larger than the US plus its sidekicks. But this is illustrative of another euphemism: maybe you heard "international community" and thought "the world", when in practice it's often another deceptive stand-in for "the west", or G7, or G20

This is getting long and probably boring