Global alliances are not friendships like those between individuals. Instead, they are strategic partnerships built on similar interests, and they last only as long as those interests remain aligned. When one partner becomes unpredictable, unreliable or costly, nations generally adjust accordingly; in essence, they hedge. This should not be conflated with betrayal, but rather, the logic of international politics.
This is not a new concept. The U.S. partnered with the Soviet Union during World War II, despite profound ideological differences, because it was strategically necessary. Alliances are steered less by values than by incentives.
Economic opportunity and predictability matter far more than rhetoric about shared identity or democratic solidarity.
What is new, however, is the degree of volatility the U.S. has demonstrated toward its own allies in recent years.
Under the Trump administration, long-standing norms of cooperation have been upended. Tariffs have been imposed on not just adversaries but also allies. NATO commitments have been openly questioned, and critical rhetoric has been directed at the U.S.’s closest allies.
The sturdy screws that once held the U.S. as the global leader are loosening.
Countries are increasingly reducing their dependence on the U.S. According to polls across Canada, Germany, France and the U.K., many now view the U.S. as less dependable and are increasingly open to expanding ties to China, not out of ideological affinity but as a response to American unpredictability.
Western leaders are well underway in expanding their diplomatic and economic relations with Beijing, with visits and trade initiatives rising considerably. European and Indo-Pacific partners alike are exploring alternative markets and supply chains.
For example, Canada has recently expanded trade relationships with other middle powers, explicitly aiming to reduce vulnerability to U.S. economic pressure.
This logic of hedging can be seen even in historically sensitive regions like Taiwan, where its leaders have expressed they do not have to choose exclusively between the U.S. and China, suggesting a potential pivot towards other countries.
The shift toward engagement with China is not driven by a belief that it has become more trustworthy, but by U.S.’ lack of dependability. What has changed is the tone of American leadership.
In contrast, China has engaged these same countries with a more measured, pragmatic approach focused on economic cooperation.
China benefits from structural advantages that make it hard to ignore. Its central role in global supply chains, leadership in sectors like electric vehicles and solar technology and growing investment in artificial intelligence, make disengagement costly.
For many nations, reducing reliance on China is simply less feasible than reducing reliance on the U.S. This imbalance shapes decision-making in ways that are often underappreciated in American politics.
Recent global events have only served to reinforce how much nations value stability.
The 2026 Iran War has disrupted energy markets and strained international shipping routes, introducing further uncertainty into the global market. In such an environment, it would be logical for countries to diversify their relationships, rather than maintain a concentration of risk in a single partner.
It is unlikely that this will result in the collapse of the U.S.’s power, but it shows the gradual erosion of the U.S.’s influence. Power in international politics is not simply a matter of military strength or economic output; credibility is just as important. If allies begin to question whether commitments will be upheld or cooperation will be reciprocated, they adjust their behavior accordingly.
That adjustment is now happening in real time. Alliances are not breaking, but they are loosening. The U.S. remains central to the global system, but doubts about its leadership and decision-making are becoming commonplace. In a system where states are constantly evaluating risk, even small shifts in perceived reliability can have outsized consequences.
If alliances are built on interest rather than sentiment, then their durability depends on consistency. Without it, even the strongest partnerships begin to crack. Right now, China’s leadership is playing the geopolitical game with greater coherence and discipline than the U.S.
