The international system naturally gravitates toward an international balance of power, in which no one state or group of states can dictate to the rest. The balance of power, which constrains all the major powers, can be disrupted if a great power is defeated at war or collapses from within. Yet, states do not balance themselves and will pursue expansionist policies when unconstrained. The predictable consequence is thus that the unbalanced power will pursue expansionist policies that exhaust it, while other rising powers at the periphery will begin to collectively balance the hegemon. The international system would thus gravitate back toward an equilibrium.
The Brief Unipolar Moment
The collapse of the Soviet Union disrupted the international balance of power, as the world was left with only one superpower. The consequence was predictable: the U.S. would embrace a hegemonic security strategy that would make peace dependent on global primacy. Without any checks on its power, the U.S. would expand in every direction in terms of engaging in wars and expanding military alliances such as NATO. Strategic thinking deteriorates as the hegemon can be everywhere and does not need to prioritize, while it can also make many mistakes as it can absorb the costs of its follies.
However, the U.S. would eventually exhaust itself with unsustainable debt, and at home the empire would create economic inequalities, social problems, democratic deficits, and political instability. As the hegemon must prevent the rise of rivals to maintain a unipolar distribution of power, rising powers such as China, Russia, India, and others collectively balance the U.S. New political organizations like BRICS and the SCO emerge, new security arrangements emerge, and there is growing economic cooperation in technology, industry, transportation corridors, banks, payment systems, trade in national currencies, etc.
A Failed Strategy for Restoring Global Primacy
The U.S. has the option of either adjusting to the new multipolar distribution of power or attempting to restore global hegemony. The U.S. decided on the latter and has recognized that the former format for global primacy is no longer sustainable. The U.S. must weaken its strategic rivals, which has taken the form of an economic war against China, a proxy war using Ukrainians to fight and weaken Russia, and a regime-change war against Iran. All of these wars are failing and have only intensified the shift to a multipolar system by decoupling economically from the U.S. and collectively balancing against the U.S.
Furthermore, the legitimacy of “liberal hegemony” is collapsing. The premise that U.S. global primacy elevated liberal democratic values and stability is being undermined by lawless forever wars, genocide, regime changes, the kidnapping of state leaders, threats of eliminating entire civilizations, the stealing of sovereign funds, restrictions on freedom of navigation, endless sanctions, etc.
The U.S. must also change its relationship with its allies, as it is overextended and must cut costs and increase the return on the investment put into its empire. Restoring primacy means that frontline states must give privileged market access to the U.S. and sever their ties with China, Russia, etc. Frontline states must also shift their production and investments to the U.S., and states like Denmark should cede strategic territory. The frontline states must also pay more for their own security and use this military power to fight and weaken strategic rivals such as China, Russia, and Iran.
The weakness of the strategy is its unattainable objective. Frontline states are asked to sacrifice their national interests for the U.S., while the U.S. has a diminishing capacity to enhance their economies or security. As the Gulf States and Europeans are discovering, the U.S. alliance system invites wars rather than preventing them. This problem is also being discussed now in East Asia.
The Europeans are especially compliant, as their entire security architecture and economic model depend on the U.S. However, even the submissive Europeans must eventually adjust to new realities by diversifying their economic connectivity, reducing their warmongering posture, and shifting their focus to national interests. Failure to do so by the current political leaders creates a political legitimacy problem that will give rise to new and untested political forces that will make the required changes.
The U.S. will see its strategic rivals finding common cause in collectively balancing against the U.S., while its weakened frontline states are destabilized. With the growing costs of pursuing unipolar policies in a multipolar world, new political forces will also emerge in the U.S. that will pursue national interests by adjusting to the international distribution of power.
Toward a New Equilibrium
It is not easy for the U.S. or its allies to accept the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. The current political class, raised over the past 3.5 decades, was told they presided over the “end of history” and ushered in the era of perpetual peace. Fueled by ideology, they believed the Political West would dominate in perpetuity to the benefit of all mankind. That ideological fantasy lives on long after the distribution of power has changed.
The U.S. will eventually scale back its empire so the other great powers will balance each other instead of the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retreat and recover its strength. The coming economic crisis will make the situation dire, and the option now is either an organized retrenchment or a disorganized retreat. The world will naturally gravitate toward a new equilibrium and, hopefully, not destroy itself during the disorderly transition.
