Continuing to show your paper thin moralist understanding of the world.

You are assigning a fixed moral category to the abstract act of supplying weapons while stripping away the concrete political relationship. Arms supplied to an occupying power are not equivalent to arms supplied to a state defending its sovereignty. The relevant questions are: who receives the weapons, against whom are they used, and what political purpose do they serve?

Yes, China exports arms. But supplying Mali or Burkina Faso as they fight US/European bavked jihadist insurgencies is not equivalent to the United States arming Israel or the the RSF (through the UAE). The Sahel’s crisis was intensified by the destruction of Libya and by a regional order shaped by French domination and the CFA-franc system. Treating every arms transfer as morally identical erases the distinction between supporting sovereign resistance and enabling occupation, proxy warfare or mass killing.

China also does not have a US-style, privately dominated military-industrial complex. Its major defence enterprises are publicly owned and directed according to state defence and foreign-policy objectives. Lockheed Martin and similar firms, by contrast, are privately owned institutions whose structural interest is the continual expansion of military contracts, weapons markets and conflict. Which they then "lobby for", the west's legalised form of corruption.