The article talks about this - about how the US benefits from being the "Team Captain" of this coalition. The US generally gets what it wants, or at least gets

The article talks about this - about how the US benefits from being the "Team Captain" of this coalition. The US generally gets what it wants, or at least gets preferential treatment. The article talks about the fact that most of the institutions in the coalition (e.g. IMF, NATO) were created by the US and slanted towards the priorities of the US. The article also doesn't claim that the US isn't using it's influence (media, financial, military) to enforce its hegemony. It argues that these actions are actually detrimental to continuing US hegemony, and that the real reason this "coalition" hangs together is because all the members have a common interest in maintaining the status quo. The article talks about the fact that if the US were to press too hard on it's hegemony, the other members of the coalition would turn against it and choose a new "team captain". The article completely acknowledges the fact that most of the members aren't huge fans of the US, for example they don't participate in the russia sanctions, but it points out that they also aren't trying to bust the sanctions. If all these other countries were trying to get out from under the thumb of the US, you'd see them taking this opportunity to align with russia and china to form a "containment coalition", but this hasn't happened (yet)