Do you really have “strategic autonomy” when you cannot pursue many policy options for fear of provoking China?

If not, then what exactly do you mean by “preserving our strategic autonomy” by not allying with the United States?

Is strategic autonomy arbitrary? In the sense that you only lose it when you ally with the United States, but not when you accept Chinese hegemony?

Is strategic autonomy a means or an end in itself?

If it is a means (to promote the national interest) then should you always stick to it or explore other means that might be more effective?

If it is an end, then does it fill your stomach?

Strategic autonomy is not a state. It is matter of degree and subject to the law of diminishing returns. Marginal costs can exceed marginal benefits.

We must move the conversation from preserving our strategic autonomy to promoting our national interest.