Ref. to the first paragraph, is it not clear how tolerating NATO expansion is linked to condemning the invasion. It seems to suggest that if a country is not happy with the aspirations of another country, invasion is the only way to deal with it.

@Alexei I can't find any statements by Australia that they oppose NATO expansion in Ukraine but think Russia should not have invaded anyway. Do you know of any?

Russia is free to object to Ukraine wanting to join NATO/EU as much as it wants and that isn't a problem. The issue is that the response was the invasion of Ukraine and killing of civilians that followed.

@JoeW this question isn't about Russia and Ukraine. The focus is on Australia.

You brought in Russia and Ukraine in your question by asking why Australia can object but Russia can't. And as far as I am aware no one has said Russia can't object to what Ukraine does but their invasion is not an objection but a violation of many norms and laws.

@JoeW did you see that Australia are apparently willing to go to war to prevent China from building a base in the Solomon Islands? The source is in the OP.

As of now everything between Australia and China is all talk while the Russia situation is an actual war after Russia amassed a large force on the border, invaded, started killing civilians and committing other war crimes. If the situation with Australia and China escalates it will be time for the rest of the world to change their stance.

The primary fault of a national government is a mandatory double standard to "protect its people/interest of rulerclass" whichever way you want to interpret. But double standard will continue to exist so long as world still divided.

@FaitoDayo Is Russia was still using words/saber rattling to get its way we wouldn't have large parts of the world condemning their actions and imposing sanctions. If the China/Australia situation escalates I would expect the same actions regarding it.

@JoeW I wouldn't. It would be nice if the Ukraine war leads us to a world where international sanctions are applied equally to every transgressor, but that has never been the case and I don't have any reason to think that it will.

@Rekesoft And there is no reason to suggest that they are not being applied equally when you are talking about a country that has taken no aggressive action versus one that has. If any only if Australia resorts to force and/or violence can you start comparing the two situations.

@JoeW How many international sanctions you recall against the US for its illegal war on Irak? Its murdering drone assassination campaign? I don't recall the US being cut from SWIFT, or its athletes banned from international competition.

@Rekesoft You are getting into whataboutism now as this question isn't about the US but about Australia, China, Ukraine, and Russia. Not to mention you are ignoring the fact that there was international support for actions that the US has taken.

@JoeW Whataboutism is indeed what you are talking about. You said "If the China/Australia situation escalates I would expect the same actions regarding it." I say that's never been the case, and that's why there's so little support for sanctions against Russia besides NATO countries and their puppet allies. Latin America has not joined the sanctions, Africa has not joined the sanctions, Asia has not joined the sanctions (but Japan), the Middle East has not joined the sanctions... they all see it one rule when NATO does illegal things, and other for the rest.

Sorry, but this question does not only suffer from whataboutism, but also misrepresents what Australia said. From the linked article: "He warned China was on "on a very deliberate course" and the only way to "preserve peace is to prepare for war and be strong as a country".", which is different from what is suggested in this question.

@Rekesoft You are making assumptions about what may or may not happen in the future and I am asking you to wait and see what happens. If it stays at words then there will be no need for sanctions, if something else happens we will need to assess what exactly happened and take action from there. And you also need to remember that there is a difference between action taken by a single country and action taken by an international coalition.

@Trilarion I never said this question suffered from whataboutism, what I said was that a comment saying what action has or hasn't happened to the US for actions they have taken in the past is whataboutism. The question itself still has problems as it is comparing the reaction to an invasion to the reaction of statements.

@JoeW My comment was directed to the OP. Independently I think this question suffers from whataboutism and said so. I think the two mentioned things have not much in common and it's not clear what you can learn from one for the other. Presumably there may be some double standards at work here, but since the situations are different, I don't see it directly. See also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72641/… Also I think Australia is misquoted here.

@Trilarion Ah, I misread what you had posted and I thought it was directed at my comment.

Here's the thing (I think we can agree that the invasion of Ukraine is a tragedy, this is not the issue I'm debating). Whenever I see debates about this topic, it is always very hypocritical and full of propaganda on both sides (don't think only Russia uses propaganda). Surely you realize simply deflecting with the whataboutism card hurts your own argument? I think plenty of people would accept that the US' actions have some (depends on who you are talking with) merit, but to fully justify it as righteous (or side-stepping the issue with the whataboutism card) is just too much

@Trilarion for the question to suffer from whataboutism, it needs to make a "what about" argument to justify some claim. Can you point out which sentences in the OP makes the "what about" argument and what the claim is? I am not seeing either. If you are seeing either - can you edit it out of the OP?