In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, defense budgets among Western nations are skyrocketing and previously less influential benefactors of the liberal order have found a new purpose—examples are numerous. Concerned over potential Russian aggression in the Nordic region, Sweden and Finland have officially submitted their applications for NATO membership, and if admitted, will raise NATO’s roster count to 31 nations. Germany, which has traditionally retained a very limited military, recently reached an agreement with U.S. aerospace giant Lockheed Martin for the purchase of 35 F-35 stealth fighters, joining 16 other Western nations currently operating or awaiting delivery of the aircraft. Militarily reclusive nations such as Japan have significantly boosted defense spending for the first time in decades, shoring up their ability to counter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific.

Amidst this newfound liberal resolve, it’s quickly becoming apparent that the familiar precedent of American political and military leadership may not be so unilateral in the future as Western allies are beginning to realize that their best form of defense might be themselves, not the limited might of projected American power which may not always have their best interests in mind. In a full-scale conflict, only home-grown domestic militaries can truly ensure the pursuit of national interest while in the shadow of American primacy.

While some European nations are decreasing their reliance on American security guarantees by strengthening their own defense industries, diplomatic ties are stronger than ever. Many Western allies have expressed considerable frustration since being shunned under the Trump administration, which moved to reduce American influence and abandon allies in institutions and agreements where American leadership was previously an indispensable force. Since President Biden’s overt recommitment to American globalism at the beginning of his presidency and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the collective strength of liberalism has been reinvigorated by the appearance of a new adversary, but not all Western nations have taken a unilateral approach in reorienting their relations with the U.S.

In December of 2022, Japan revealed its first national security strategy in a decade, revealing that, in addition to bolstering its own defense industry, it’s also cementing strategic ties with the U.S. in an attempt to increase its aggregate deterrence capability. This signals a continued reliance on American power to protect Western interests. After all, American security guarantees created a safe environment for Japan, Germany, and numerous other now-Westernized nations to prosper following World War II—a precedent on which it has proven hard for the West to decrease their reliance.

Abdicating more responsibilities to Western allies would represent a massive step towards concretely identifying the new adversary of the West, which rightfully appears to be autocracy. While some scholars have objected to using such a restrictive, binary model to describe the state of great power conflict in the 21st century, it retains significant merit in how it distinguishes between two very different forms of government that all nations wrestle with—power is either taken from the people or granted to them.

However, certain components of authoritarian governments can be found in the very nature of American hegemony, which has not gone unnoticed. In the current “rules-based” international order, many critics argue that the U.S. has manipulated the rules to its benefit, given it largely created the rules and maintains by far the greatest share of military power within Western organizations. As a result, external Western interests have understandably felt subordinate to distinctly American interests at various points within the past several decades. A prime example is the recent loss of France’s contract with Australia to produce nuclear submarines for United States-based industries, which France has explicitly ascribed to the unfair dominance of the American military-industrial complex.

The U.S. may be reluctant to admit it, but even within its sphere of ideological allies, it exerts an occasionally authoritarian degree of influence over the trajectory of the liberal order. As Western allies grow in their collective ability to cooperate with American hegemony as well as keep it in check, greater accountability backed by military independence is crucial to ensuring an equitable liberal order.

It may fly in the face of realist theory to suggest that the United States might actively seek to weaken its hegemony, but greater charitability would be vastly beneficial in pursuing more multilateral, decentralized, and democratic neoliberalism.

A concern for broader liberal ideology beyond distinctly American interests must be adopted for this to influence the current structure of Western influence. Given that allied entities with similar values would likely fill the vacuum left by a downscaling of American power, the only barrier facing such a course of action is the self-interested motive of hegemony preservation, which I believe should be ample motivation for reordering priorities—rising inequality, deteriorating infrastructure, and declining social capital are just a few of the major issues facing domestic American life, all of which warrant a reallocation of resources to address in some form or another.

However, this shouldn’t be seen as an imperative with exclusively domestic implications, but rather a wholesale investment in the credibility of American influence—there have been numerous instances where the dysfunction of Western democracy has been weaponized by more nefarious forces to undermine the effectiveness of the American presence in global affairs. With democracy around the world and at home under assault, extreme centralization of power within both the liberal order and domestic American politics is counterproductive to modeling and enforcing those same democratic values around the globe. Washington should be willing to take a step back if it means more collective progress toward these values to which it so frequently claims allegiance.

None of these sentiments should be interpreted as a broad call to retrenchment, however. In fact, if one imperative has emerged through the political turmoil of the past century, it’s that the world cannot afford an isolationist America. While American power doesn’t by any means have a unique capacity for virtue, it does have the most influence among its Western allies, and therefore the greatest potential for the promotion of human flourishing. For as much as other nations deserve an opportunity for a greater stake in world leadership, completely abandoning the status quo would be disastrous for the current balance of power that exists as a byproduct of American globalism.

Collective Western success, whether it be economic, political, or military, is so intricately intertwined with American leadership that backpedaling too far could easily yield disastrous results. While asymmetric American military strength can stand to be diminished in favor of decentralized Western autonomy, diplomatic relations, strategic coordination, and stalwart resolve cannot. Crucial pillars of Western security cooperation such as the F-35 program and continued Ukrainian assistance cannot be left in the dust. When structured to provide economic and security wins for all involved, overseas defense cooperation is a massive job creator, confidence booster, and efficiency boon. Joint military exercises strengthen relationships, build trust, and reinforce the collective objectives of the liberal order.

As America enters a new age of great power competition, it finds itself at a crossroads—one that presents a crucial opportunity for Washington’s verbal commitment to democracy to gain massive credibility if it’s willing to defy the hegemonic instinct of rule preservation. An America that is perceived as conceited and self-serving won’t make any meaningful progress in a geopolitical climate driven by mutually beneficial relationships.

As American power rallies to counter Chinese influence that is often framed as suspicion-worthy and nefarious, it has a rare chance to take a long look in the mirror and come to terms with its own intentions, which must begin with the recognition that America doesn’t hold a monopoly on the promotion of liberalism. Western allies can and should be allowed to take the reins in spheres where American influence was previously a unilateral force—and Washington should be willing to encourage it.