Maybe, but globalization is how China got industrialized so fast in the first place. Help your enemy get rich, and then watch as they push you off your place. Not a smart strategy either.

Yes the difference could be that I am against US hegemony, and all for finally somehow growing up and attempting to avoid a catastrophic, planet annihilating conflict.

That would probably require a different point of view than labelling China as the enemy, or keeping them pre-industrial and poor in order to control them, as the US has done repeatedly in many south American countries.

Russia has already demonstrated that McDonald's theory doesn't work.

WW1 already demonstrated that "trade keeps peace" can't be counted on, but some people never learn. The argument was made and soundly debunked many years before anybody here was even born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

How could "trade keeps peace" prevent Russia paying Serbia to start a war to gro it's empire?

> there's an argument to be made that de-globalisation is a sure fire way to global conflict..

You could make that argument, but that is dependent strongly on everybody being rational actors and there is plenty of evidence that dictatorships are not rational actors.

Is the US orchestrating coup after coup all over the globe a desirable rational actor ?

The reality is that it will take multiple generations for us to get rid politicians who when zoomed out act like teenage boys, and we can argue all we want.

USA - "Hello, my name is the US of A."

Everybody - "Welcome, US of A."

USA - "Today I haven't orchestrated a coup in (checks paper)[0] ... six years?"

*applause*

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

My money is on France for this one, but you never know..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Guinean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

That argument gets longer in the tooth by the day. It presupposes a certain amount of shared values.