The United States, to this day, remains deluded in its ambition for global hegemony. This is not merely propaganda; it is a stated policy. The concept of “primacy” or “full spectrum dominance,” as articulated by the military, reflects a worldview that is increasingly outdated. For two decades, I have observed the futility of Washington pursuing this perspective. The reality is stark: the U.S. represents just 4.2% of the world, and we are no longer in the eras of 1945, 1950, or even 1990. China has eclipsed the U.S. economy when measured accurately, and it boasts a far greater industrial capacity. My frequent visits to China reveal that they have surpassed the U.S. in many fields of technology—though not all. This fact serves as an important reminder of the dramatic shifts that have taken place since the post-World War II era.

Historically, the U.S. enjoyed a period of uncontested dominance, but the rise of China’s industrial prowess and technological advancements are both measurable and observable. Cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai showcase China’s rapid progress, and it begs the question: can the United States adapt to this new reality, or will it cling to outdated notions of superiority? History shows that empires that resist change often decline more swiftly than anticipated. Moreover, China is poised to lead in critical technological sectors, including electric vehicles and solar energy production, where it currently holds over 80% of the global supply chain from panels to essential minerals. The U.S. may talk about attaining green energy independence, but it begins from a position of significant disadvantage.

China’s advantages extend beyond economics; they influence geopolitical dynamics as well, particularly in areas like zero-emission ocean shipping, a sector where the U.S. is not competitive. The disconnect between the growing capabilities of other nations and the outdated ambitions of the U.S. reflects a delusion fostered by years of historical power. From my perspective, this power has not been wielded responsibly; in fact, the legacy of Western imperialism leaves little attractive from a moral standpoint. Ideals espoused by figures like Adam Smith—who believed in trade over ownership—highlight the effectiveness of cooperation over conquest. European nations historically spread knowledge and culture, but they did so through colonization, leaving behind scars that continue to afflict many nations today.

In our current multipolar world, the narrative must change. The false sense of a Western-led world has faded, yet there persists a misalignment in the understanding among Western leaders. Many in the West, particularly in the U.S., remain unaware of the extent of global shifts in literacy, technology, and industrial capability. Some leaders seem to cling to notions of a lost empire, failing to recognize that national priorities, such as health care and education, should take precedence over pursuing outdated imperial dreams. Instead, the relentless pursuit of dominance fosters domestic instability, as political aspirations conflict with public needs.

European leaders, in particular, continue grappling with outdated fears rooted in 19th and 20th-century conflicts. The idea that Russia’s primary ambition is to invade Western Europe is not only irrational but demonstrates a disconnect from historical context. Such fears perpetuate a narrative that undermines rational dialogue, replacing it with emotional reactions that serve only to deepen divisions. Leaders must actively seek understanding through dialogue and engagement rather than taking a confrontational stance, which only heightens misunderstandings.

We now live in a multipolar reality that is evident across economic, technological, and military dimensions. The persistent delusion of Western hegemony—especially that of the United States—creates a widening gap between what is real and what is imagined. This disconnect can have dire consequences. Prominent figures, such as Donald Trump, exemplify this dissonance as they attempt to issue commands to other nations, oblivious to their growing autonomy and interests. Countries like India, with significant populations and developing economies, are no longer willing to take orders from Washington, pointing out a significant decline in U.S. influence.

While Trump may reflect the broader tendencies of the military-industrial complex, the responsibility of leadership lies in acknowledging these shifts and guiding the nation toward cooperation and restraint. A presidency that fails to recognize the realities of a multipolar world not only risks damaging American power but accelerates its decline. Leadership in the modern context involves navigating the complexities of global relations with humility and foresight, rather than issuing ultimatums that ignore the evolving landscape. Accepting the world as it is—not as one wishes it to be—is the critical challenge for U.S. leaders going forward.