Shifting world order — decline of the hegemon?

The US-led order is under strain, but decline is not the same as collapse.

Published:

Executive summary

  1. The post-1945 order was not only American power; it was also a network of rules, alliances and institutions.
  2. The current shift is better described as erosion of dominance than a sudden end of US power.
  3. China’s rise, Russia’s revisionism, technology competition and Western domestic polarization all weaken the old model.
  4. The most likely outcome is a more fragmented, multi-centre order rather than one clean replacement hegemon.
  5. For Europe and Poland, the practical issue is resilience: defence, energy, supply chains and diplomatic optionality.

What “hegemon” means here

A hegemon is not simply the strongest country. It is a state whose military, economic, technological and institutional weight allows it to set rules that others broadly follow. After 1945, the United States combined military reach, reserve-currency power, alliances and institutions such as Bretton Woods, NATO and later the WTO-linked trading system.

Why the old order is weakening

The pressure comes from several directions at once: China has become a systemic competitor, Russia contests European security by force, many states in the Global South hedge between blocs, and Western societies have become more polarized about trade, migration and foreign interventions. The result is not the disappearance of US power, but a narrower ability to make others accept US-preferred rules automatically.

What replaces it?

The cleanest forecast is not “China replaces America”. A more realistic scenario is a multiplex or fragmented order: overlapping coalitions, regional security blocs, selective sanctions, competing technology standards and ad hoc partnerships. States will cooperate in one field and compete in another.

Implications for Europe and Poland

For Europe, the key question is how much strategic capacity it can build while still relying on the US security umbrella. For Poland, the pressure points are clear: NATO credibility, eastern-flank defence, energy security, infrastructure, cyber resilience and supply-chain exposure. In a less predictable order, geography matters more again.

Sources and further reading

Back to Geopolitics