The framing of this article strikes me as odd. The author seems to liken moves against US led hegemony as outright wall building. Yet as they note: > Unlike th

The framing of this article strikes me as odd. The author seems to liken moves against US led hegemony as outright wall building. Yet as they note: > Unlike the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet blocs were clearly delineated, the two segments of the coming world will likely remain somewhat connected. They seem to be looking to analyze the present day through the lease of the Cold War, yet it is clear that what’s happening isn’t primarily ideological: > As the global divergence continues, however, countries will gravitate toward one side or the other, and (as during the Cold War) not necessarily on clear ideological grounds. Communist Vietnam, fearful of rising Chinese power, is open to American overtures, while democratic Pakistan, a Cold War ally of Washington’s that is now heavily linked to China through Belt and Road investments, has effectively become a client state of Beijing. Overall, I find the thesis here lacking. Are there tensions? Absolutely. But the fact that sovereign nations feel they shouldn’t be at the mercy of the global dollar hardly harkens to Soviet era lines on a map.