Typical piece for a 20th century historian with a conservative bent but I think the comparisons between Russia/China/Iran and historical enemies etc are deeply

Typical piece for a 20th century historian with a conservative bent but I think the comparisons between Russia/China/Iran and historical enemies etc are deeply misplaced and if you're looking for the end of the American empire much more focus ought to be spent on the state of liberal democracy in the US. China and Russia today are fundamentally not comparable to the Soviet Union or even Nazi Germany which is an insulting comparison when one considers the damage done by the Axis forces to either country. Today even though there is conflict there's no stark ideological opposition as such, there is no real cold war. The global economy is still integrated, climate change is a global issue, and so on. The aging population, strength of conventional weaponry and so on make great power war seem absurdly costly. When he starts quoting Churchill on the intelligentsia engaging in 'self-hatred' it becomes very obvious that Ferguson isn't interested in questioning the weaknesses of liberal democracy but rather demands loyalty to 'king and country' in the face of external threats. Activism is portrayed in the same light, even compared to Soviet sympathizers during the cold war. This narrative of self-reflection as weakness is I think one of the big reasons why the US struggles. There is little reform, little intellectual capacity to envision alternative futures, and secular malaise and stagnation.