> Biden tried diplomacy with the EU. He tried to get them to agree to a renewed US-led world order, but it wasn't working.

Can you elaborate on that? It seems to me it "wasn't working" mostly in the sense that Trump got elected again.

> The EU decided to play the US and China against each other to improve its own standing, which is why the US is now moving away from the EU.

Seems like confusing cause and effect. The EU is drifting away from the US towards China because the US pushed them away.

> The world is going to be a much more violent place without hegemony. Free trade doesn't exist in that type of world. The US realizes this and is playing 50 years ahead. None of the nice words matter when the energy, trade, and economic lines are redrawn.

This is happening largely because of the US, although they stand to lose by replacing a world order that benefits them with a world order that benefits China and Russia. Well maybe the US will become sufficiently like China and Russia that they can benefit too. But even with a gradual loss of hegemony there was nothing inevitable about a transition to the law of the jungle and it's doubtful that the net result will be positive for the US.

> People like to say the US is led by lawyers and China is led by scientists and engineers. This is wrong. The US is led by war generals and intelligence.

I think the relevant distinction is that the US is democratic while China is authoritarian. But the current US government wants to be authoritarian.

> The career DoD folks are the ones impressing upon the administration to make these moves.

Again a reversal of cause and effect? I doubt old career DoD folks like the current developments. But the current government might give a bigger role to the war generals.