American Supremacy Is Over, and Something New Is Coming
The era of unchallenged American supremacy—the unipolar moment that defined global affairs after the Cold War—has effectively ended. A provocative New York Times Guest Essay published on January 12, 2026, titled “American Supremacy Is Over, and Something New Is Coming”, has sparked widespread discussion by declaring that the United States no longer holds singular dominance on the world stage. Instead, the international order is transitioning toward a more complex, multipolar reality.
This shift did not occur overnight. For years, analysts have observed the gradual erosion of U.S. relative power through rising challengers, internal strains, and changing global dynamics. Recent events, however, have crystallized the argument.
The Accelerating Decline of Unipolarity
Several interconnected factors explain why American primacy is fading:
- The rise of peer and near-peer competitors — China’s sustained economic growth, technological leadership in areas like AI, hypersonics, and green energy, and dominance over critical supply chains have created a genuine rival pole. Russia’s resilience in protracted conflicts, despite sanctions, demonstrates that military staying power persists even for non-Western powers. Emerging economies such as India, Brazil, and Indonesia are gaining influence through platforms like BRICS, diluting Western-centric institutions.
- Challenges to U.S.-led global institutions — Efforts at de-dollarization, declining confidence in bodies like the IMF and World Bank, and reduced U.S. commitment to multilateralism (including treaty withdrawals and aid cuts) signal a retreat from the post-1945 liberal international order.
- Domestic constraints and strategic reorientation — The current administration’s “flexible realism” approach, as outlined in the 2025 National Security Strategy, prioritizes dominance in the Western Hemisphere over global policing. This marks a departure from exporting liberal democracy worldwide, focusing instead on raw national interests, regional influence, and avoiding overextension amid fiscal pressures and domestic divisions.
- Military and economic limits — While the U.S. maintains unparalleled global projection capabilities, vulnerabilities in supply chains, advanced adversary defenses, and the costs of prolonged engagements have become evident. Conflicts such as the one in Ukraine highlighted the boundaries of U.S. and NATO leverage.
A dramatic illustration of these limits came in early January 2026, when the United States launched Operation Absolute Resolve—a special military operation on January 3 that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Caracas. Justified as a counter-narcotics and law-enforcement action backed by military force, the strikes targeted infrastructure to suppress air defenses before a raid on Maduro’s compound. The operation, involving extensive planning and special forces, succeeded with no U.S. fatalities reported, but it drew sharp international condemnation as a violation of sovereignty. Critics view it as a symptom of a declining hegemon resorting to unilateral force in its traditional “backyard” to reassert control amid growing external influences (e.g., from China and Russia in Latin America).
What the “Something New” Might Entail
The emerging global landscape defies simple labels, but several plausible scenarios are under debate:
- A balanced multipolar system — Multiple power centers (the U.S., China, Russia, the EU, India, and others) coexist, cooperating selectively on shared challenges like climate change, pandemics, or trade while competing elsewhere. This could distribute burdens more equitably and reduce the risks of unilateral overreach.
- A world of contested spheres of influence — Regional blocs emerge: U.S. primacy in the Americas, Chinese leadership in Asia, and greater autonomy in the Global South. Some describe this as a return to 19th-century realism, where great powers respect (or contest) each other’s domains rather than imposing universal ideologies.
- Heightened volatility and risks — Historical transitions between hegemonic systems often involve turbulence—miscalculations, proxy conflicts, or arms races. Flashpoints in Taiwan, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East could escalate before new equilibria form.
Optimists see potential benefits: a less interventionist U.S., shared global responsibilities, and opportunities for middle powers to shape outcomes. Pessimists warn of instability, authoritarian gains, or a fragmented order prone to conflict.
The United States retains formidable strengths—technological innovation, military superiority in key domains, cultural influence, and the world’s largest economy—but its share of global GDP and ability to dictate terms unilaterally continue to shrink as others rise. The Venezuela operation, far from demonstrating confident dominance, may instead underscore the unpredictability of a power in relative decline.
Ultimately, the essay’s core message resonates with a growing consensus among strategists: the old rules of the post-Cold War era are breaking down. The world is entering uncharted territory, where adaptability, realism, and selective engagement will define success. Whether this transition yields a more stable multipolar balance, renewed (if narrower) U.S. leadership, or prolonged disorder remains an open—and urgent—question.
About The Author
