The Erosion of Unipolarity

For nearly three decades after the Cold War, the United States enjoyed what Charles Krauthammer famously termed the “unipolar moment.” Its unrivaled military power, economic strength, and cultural reach allowed it to champion a liberal international order centered on American norms and institutions. Yet, this era of dominance carried within it the seeds of its own decline. Costly military interventions, the 2008 financial crisis, domestic polarization, and shifting global economic gravity toward Asia have steadily eroded the credibility of U.S.-led liberalism.

The unipolar order’s decline is not merely a result of external challenges but of internal contradictions. Washington’s oscillation between global leadership and nationalist retrenchment—visible in its inconsistent commitment to multilateralism—has bred uncertainty among allies. The erosion of trust in U.S. reliability, particularly after the Trump administration’s unilateralism and the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, has accelerated the search for alternative centers of power and influence.

Defining the New Multipolarity

The emerging international order is not simply a return to 19th-century great power politics. Today’s multipolarity is complex, fluid, and multidimensional. While the U.S.-China rivalry dominates headlines, the true character of this system lies in the agency of middle powers—India, the European Union, Brazil, and actors across the Global South—who increasingly shape outcomes through regional and issue-based coalitions.

This decentralization of power extends beyond military balance. It encompasses technological ecosystems, supply chain networks, digital governance, and the contestation of normative frameworks. Institutions like BRICS and ASEAN, and emerging mechanisms such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) or India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor, reflect a world in which global order is negotiated through diverse, often overlapping, channels of influence.

For Washington, the challenge is conceptual as much as strategic: how to operate effectively in a system where leadership is contingent and legitimacy must be earned, not assumed.

U.S. Strategic Realignment: Between Restraint and Assertion

American foreign policy today is caught between competing impulses—restraint and reassertion. The Biden administration’s rhetoric emphasizes alliance renewal and democratic solidarity, yet its actions reveal a continued reliance on competitive containment, economic decoupling, and strategic dominance. The “foreign policy for the middle class” doctrine, for example, reflects a protectionist turn that complicates transatlantic cooperation on trade and industrial policy.

At the same time, the U.S. has demonstrated adaptability in forging new regional partnerships, from the Indo-Pacific’s Quad to the AUKUS defense pact. These initiatives, however, have raised concerns in Europe about marginalization and the revival of bloc politics. The persistent emphasis on great-power competition risks crowding out engagement with the Global South—precisely where much of the geopolitical reordering is taking place.

Critically, the American approach to multipolarity still bears traces of the unipolar mindset. The instinct to lead, rather than to cooperate on equal terms, continues to shape strategic thinking. This tension—between the rhetoric of partnership and the reality of dominance—defines much of Washington’s foreign policy ambiguity.