I think it is very frustrating but I do appreciate China's complete commitment to its own development to the point where it will be able to dictate terms to the imperialists.

So many other socialist countries crumbled after the fall of the USSR. While on one hand this demonstrates how supportive the USSR was of their projects, it also demonstrates a key weakness, as it means they were unable to provide an alternative model for trade and development. A single partner goes down and suddenly North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe all go to shit. If they were robust and developed and had consistent trading partners they would be in a much better position today. Yugoslavia might still exist if it hadn't tried to play both sides and depend on both the USSR and the IMF.

China offers a path forward that I think is more robust, even though it has contradictions. When the imperialists try to fuck you, China will be there to trade. This is, by far, imperialists' most powerful weapon and China is destroying it more and more every day. It is the only reason we can see pink movements in Latin America, the establishment of AES in the Sahel, of Russia (not socialist, but an opponent to Western imperialists) not immediately collapsing in response to getting cut off from the USD banking system.

There's a point missing from this, though. Why couldn't China just do that and support revolution elsewhere? In my opinion... it could. It really could do more. I think a lot of this is a holdover from China considering itself to be in a very weak position (and it does still have many weaknesses) where it cannot take the anti-imperialist lead in a new cold war. It doesn't want to take lead in a new cold war, it wants to develop itself as much as possible first, to weaken the imperialist empire and build its alternative (China-led multipolarity).

I think it is reasonably perceived that stronger moves against imperialists will further the creation of two blocs that crystallize current geopolitical alignments. I think it is also reasonably perceived that the trend of those alignments is favorable towards China, so the more time before crystallization, the better. Maybe it will just be, literally, NATO vs. everyone else some day.

I think that it is likely that we will see foreign policy change from China over the next few decades. Not necessarily into a firebrand supporter of revolution on ML principals, but I do think they'll start to more openly flex muscle around arms shipments, sanctions, national sovereignty, etc. I think the policy of "we will trade with everyone" will begin to have exceptions. A lot of it will be prompted by an imperialist West looking to crystallize those blocs in their favor.

Anyways I do also find their strategy frustrating even though I do see the value in it. I see a large nation led by a communist party that allows and even participates in the genocide of Gaza by trading with Israel and not rallying any kind of coercive international resistance. I see a large nation led by a communist party that fails to consistently ally with communist movements in neighboring countries and even generates opposition to China within them, as China makes deals with their oppressors. These are missed opportunities to forward our cause and they are missed due to highly sophisticated but still disappointing strategies developed in an era where China was a minor power.