Well it seems that from a historical point of view it is not the case.
During the Ming era they could have easily invaded whole Asia. Maybe even Eastern Europe. They never did.
Why if not because they have a natural trend for defensive posture?
China, in it's various geographical permutations, has a very long history with a lot of different dynasties. Maybe the Ming and Tang were unusually benevolent (or not), but others probably not so much. Even if it were true that all dynasties were exclusively inward looking, that does not necessarily indicate that it would always be so.
I expect that the leadership of China will do what they have to do to retain power in the trying times ahead that that nation faces. Or try to. If 'globalism' collapses (which I dearly hope to be the case for all of our sake) then they lose the bouy which they've grown dependent upon. China has the boots to put on the ground if they choose that route...and if their leadership stays in power long enough to give that a go.. I do not expect the results of either the weening or the efforts to avoid it to be pretty.
Maybe. But you know what? I think it makes it only worse.
Problem with USA is that their invasion is global but... ingenious.
They made war to countries unable to resist yes, but they also invaded developped countries.
They invaded them with their philosophy, their economy, their culture...
And that is something that nobody ever done, transforming entire country not by arms but by cunning activities...
Now everyone can only think as an American. Anyone thinking outside this box is considered a communist.
And this box is destroying our world, in a more cunning and harsh way than Hitler, Mao or Staline.
The U.S. has changed significantly over our relatively short existence. We peeps have traditionally been quite isolationist much to the chagrin of those who wished to enlist our muscle to help in their own struggles (esp, the Brits in the 1900's.) It wasn't really until WW-II when we came our of the thing in fantastic shape that the street-level attitude about fucking around with others militarily became positive (although yellow journalism has always been able to rally the peeps to a cause.) Even after that we finally put an end to the military/industrial complex scam in Vietnam via popular resistance.
As for cunning and intrigue, a good bit of that seems attributable to the machinations by and for the privately owned central bank and financial cartels which we were not vexed with until Wilson. To a degree I would say that we American peeps are victims in the same way that others around the world are, but admittedly we end up getting more of the mine and less of the shaft here in the homeland. At least those of us who not resting in Arlington, but combat casualties are a decreasing problem with technology advances.
I don't really want to go to bat for the fucked up things that the U.S. has done and continues to do, but I do think that it is deceptively easy to oversimplify things and pin the blame less precisely than is necessary for a good understanding. And such an understanding is key to making forward progress in some of these areas.
As for people eating up the idiotic aspects of 'American culture', that's their own damn fault. I'm shocked and chagrined to see it whenever I travel. My opinion is that most of people who fancy themselves 'thinking outside of the box' probably are mostly just absorbing fairly standard-fair collectivist output from people who themselves are, ironically enough, anything but communists. They mostly just find it the pinko construct tunable to a desirable resonance, and fancy to drones who lap it up to be controllable. This group are mostly interested in the 'collect' part of 'collectivism' as a means to their own ends. IOW, they know that when the time is right it will be they who end up with 'the collection.'