Multipolarity reduces the risk of great-power conflict, which promotes stability and strategic resilience in a complex global landscape.

In contrast, the benefits of embracing the world’s burgeoning multipolarity and attempting to build a strategy around it are significant. First and foremost, embracing multipolarity — instead of focusing purely on bipolar competition with China — should lower the risk of direct great-power war, albeit at the cost of potentially increasing the number of lower-stakes conflicts. This trend should not be overblown; there were numerous lower-stakes conflicts during the bipolar cold war and even in the unipolar moment. Yet because great-power war today can escalate to the nuclear level, it is an existential threat; preventing great-power war should be among the most important goals of American foreign policy.57 A multipolar strategy — one that is not entirely built around containing China — also allows the United States to hedge against a possible future decline in its power, or against further rise in China’s capabilities. U.S. strategy should instead focus on ways to leverage multipolarity to its benefit, recognizing that putting all Washington’s eggs in one basket — relying solely on the United States to provide the military force necessary to monitor and manage in all the world’s major regions — poses a significant risk. The emergence of other capable actors, particularly in Asia and Europe, creates a backup for U.S. power; these states may not share all of America’s goals, but their fundamental opposition to Chinese expansionism makes it less likely that China will run the global table should the United States falter. The converse is also true: The embrace of multipolarity helps the United States to hedge against a future where China falters. By maintaining flexibility and increasing the number of available partners, this approach can help to prepare the United States for a future where a range of possible challenges emerge.