Much of our geopolitics still rests on the agreements that were established after 1945.

Actually 1944. The Bretton Woods Accords, in which the US proposed to open up its consumer markets and protect blue water transportation on its own dime. All the recipients of this largesse had to do was stay out of the USSR's orbit and give up their overseas empires, which they’d already lost and were less important as they could now trade with anybody. In other words, the US offered a (really attractive!) bribe.

This expanded to include WWII defeated nations (the 'Axis'' powers) and a good bit later China (the Nixon visit/offer was to pry China away from the USSR - and it worked). This all led to the current 'global order' - but the USSR collapsed in 89-90.

The US might have turned away from the deal then, except for two factors: the US had become dependent on oil imports, and the difficulty of unwinding both the deal and being willing to reduce the navy's size.

So... if you lived through 89-90, wondered why we didn't suddenly get a lot more prosperous from the end of the Cold War - now you know.

Up until the RF invaded Ukraine, the US had been moving away from the deal. It seems to have reversed a bit now that the Russians are back on the scene - and acting badly. Still, the general trend is away.

Peter Zeihan lays this out very well in Disunited Nations. Having previously dug through the history, I have to say he makes a very convincing argument.

All that said, for those of us 'liberals' who support the global order, we have to recognize that it's been on our dime - and it's been a raw deal for places like the 'rust belt' in the US and canalled (highly industrialized) Britain. Jobs for people in the US with only a HS degree have been on a downward trend for decades. Not much better in the UK. These people have good reason to be pissed off at us. We need to stop pretending that they can be 'educated into good paying jobs'. That hasn't worked.

Since Nixon's 'southern strategy', the Republicans (essentially a party for rich people and corporations) has taken advantage of this dissatisfaction, using socially conservative themes to get people (who had a legit grudge) to vote against their own economic interests (e.g., Reagan’s union-busting which made things significantly worse for them). That minority of rich people trying to steer the party lost control with Gingrich's 'pledge' and it's been progressing since then.

Just my $0.02...