I don't really get why people imply that these two are somehow disconnected.
A global superpower that systematically employs military agression to impose its will somewhere far away around the globe is definitely authoritarian. Even if it had managed to create a convincing brand of democracy benifiting only, like, 5% of global population.
Because those events specifically are not connected to authoritarianism - and more generally military might is not is not authoritarian at least not directly. We’re talking how governments govern, not their ability to project power.
EG - North Korea is the most authoritarian state in the world but we haven’t seen them “invade” anyone “in the last 20 years”. The two are not directly related.
A global superpower that systematically employs military agression to impose its will somewhere far away around the globe is definitely authoritarian. Even if it had managed to create a convincing brand of democracy benifiting only, like, 5% of global population.