If not now, it soon will be. Otherwise, why would the US want to drive a wedge between Russia & China while also wooing India? There would be no need to pursue the balance of power politics & methods to its favor if the US held all the cards.It's not multi-polar world yet
The US sits on the S. Pole, but not in the position to enforce any claim on the N. Pole. ..the most active Arctic power has been Russia, who has taken efforts to assert its maritime claims, develop resources, and even begin militarizing the region. In comparison, the United States is woefully behind as, even today, it owns a total of two active icebreakers—of which only one is functional.
So by default, it's not a unipolar world anymore (pun intended).
Proponents of a unipolar system often dismiss setbacks in American foreign policy because setbacks don’t comport with their unrealistic visions of U.S. hegemony.
Ultimately, whether we live in a multipolar or unipolar world is an objective, not a political, question, and it is an exceedingly important one. The answer affects how we understand the North Korea crisis, developments in Iran and the trade skirmish with China. If the world is unipolar, then the stories dominating the headlines today are all brushfires that the U.S. is struggling to put out and that won’t be of much consequence even five years from now. If the world is on the verge of multipolarity, then these issues are manifestations of the competition between the U.S. and its rising challengers, and the post-1991 way of viewing the world has become obsolete.
Even so, the U.S. is still the world’s pre-eminent power. This isn’t necessarily a permanent state of affairs. If, for example, GPF is wrong about China’s and Russia’s underlying weaknesses, a multipolar world might be closer than I’m suggesting. https://geopoliticalfutures.com/multipolar-world-emerging/
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:33 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add links)