[cman1444]

>How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?

It doesn't change the physical realities of that much at all besides maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid.

No, the main change is that now Xi can more reliably expect a weaker, less unified response from the west due to political divisions inside America as well as between western nations. He can expect less diplomatic pushback, fewer sanctions, etc.

Also, no all serious leaders do not only respect power. Serious leaders who are also morally and ethically good also take into account right and wrong when they make decisions.

The right thing to do would be for America to try to preserve and enforce a rules based order, regardless if other countries do. America has significant agency in the world and should consider how the world should be and try to get there. Not only consider how the world is.

[darkerside]

Even from a realpolitik standpoint, there is benefit on showing consistent adherence to an ethical code. It encourages other actors to follow that same code as well. When we violate our own morals and values, we can't expect others to respect them.

[MisterMower]

How does one nation following an ethical code encourage others to follow it as well?

Following an ethical code in international affairs constrains the nation following it. It provides an asymmetric advantage to others who choose not to follow that code.

This is partly why China has become so powerful over the past three decades. They chose to ignore western ethical codes around intellectual property rights, fair trade, environmental protections, and human rights. They are powerful today in no small part to their willingness to disregard these things.

This is difficult for people to understand because in interpersonal relationships following an ethical code is 100% the path to healthy and meaningful relationships, and most modern history education attempts to anthropomorphize past interactions between nations. But the cold fact is that international politics is nothing like interpersonal relationships.

A nation can encourage other nations to follow their ethical code by threatening to use force if they don't. They can create incentives to encourage nations to change their behavior through trade or treaty. But I can't think of a single time in history when a nation was such a shining star of morality that they inspired other nations to change their ways and adopt their ethics.

You can't expect other nations to respect your nation's moral and ethical values when they don't care about them in the first place and in fact hope that you choose to follow them to the fullest extent so that you're easier to compete against.

[DecoySalamander]

> maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid

Isn't that the opposite? The US just demonstrated that it can still conduct military operations, and the presence of Chinese envoys in the country does not deter it in any way. As of now, China has one fewer source of oil it can rely on in case of an invasion.

[cman1444]

Maybe you're right, but I view it more as: China can now be confident that the US doesn't care much at all about the sovereignty of weaker nations or coming to the aid of allies. "Might makes right", and if China asserts itself with strength (as in a full blockade/invasion instead of a few envoys present) Trump will most likely back off.

[MisterMower]

How does the US invading one country imply they won’t defend another country?

I get that military resources devoted to one theatre can’t be used in another and for that reason the US might be less able to defend Taiwan, but that may not make them less willing.

A more reasonable read is that the aircraft carriers and other naval assets in the Gulf of Mexico are more effective there than they could be in the Pacific. Venezuela doesn’t have hypersonic anti-ship missiles. China does.