The "Good Guys" Always Win

It’s quintessentially American. But in geopolitics, it’s more than an aphorism – it’s a playbook. Being the “good guys” isn’t just ethical; it’s strategic.

A common mistake of great powers is assuming dominance comes purely from economic and military might. History proves otherwise. Without trust, cooperation, and strategic alliances, power is unsustainable.

Authoritarians and other malevolent forces suffer the same fate – they alienate, incentivise adversaries and sow the seeds of their own demise. Nations, like people, seek security. Bad behavior may compel short-term compliance, but it doesn’t last.

Sustainable leadership and enduring global power isn’t about dictating terms – it’s about building partnerships and becoming the indispensable cornerstone to a global system.

The U.S. once understood this. After World War II, it cast itself not just as a superpower but as a champion of freedom, democracy, and cooperation – at least rhetorically. This wasn’t ethics, but influence. The Marshall Plan, NATO and the modern global economic order, were strategic investments in a world that solidified and perpetuated American leadership.

The “good guy” persona complemented military and economic dominance, allowing the U.S. to shape global systems under the guise of benevolence. But that role has been squandered – bit by bit and now entirely. America’s brand has become transactional, inconsistent, unreliable and abusive, with internal political, cultural and economic divisions further eroding the image it once projected. The facade has fallen.

While it’s clear to most that when America at least ‘played’ the good guy, it won, and when it played the villain it lost, it’s a striking irony that its current leaders, supposed masters of branding, seem blind to the very source of their nation’s unparalleled brand power.

So as America hangs up its hat, the rest of the world faces a rapidly shifting geopolitical calculus. The “good guys” role is open for recast. The call is out.

Who will audition?

Europe is the most obvious contender. It would take work – building a clear vision for the future and the capacity to defend it. A vision that articulates the value of democracy, diversity, fair economic opportunity, rule of law, and egalitarian ideals. But it must also live up to those ideals and speak with a unified voice.

The UK could also play a leading role – but like European powers, not alone, and not without bolstering or rebuilding commitments that may be unpopular.

Russia may benefit geopolitically, but it has no interest in the “good guy” role, instead appealing to those who view the villain as ‘misunderstood’. Though it casts itself as a disrupter and counterweight to Western liberalism, it lacks the economic and diplomatic clout to replace the U.S. as a stabilizing force.

Other BRICS nations however may seize the moment, with coordinated efforts boosting their standing. India and Brazil, in particular, are well-positioned to bridge Western democracies and the Global South – making them key players in a changing world order.

China, if it made a seismic shift – easing tensions with Taiwan, championing climate action, brokering peace in Ukraine, etc – could vie for leadership. But such a pivot seems unlikely given its current domestic and international trajectory. Still, as the world seeks stability, China stands to benefit, unless it squanders the opportunity through aggression.

Conversely, strategic alliances among Pacific powers – Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc – could emerge as stabilizing forces, leveraging shared interests to balance a rising China. Ties are already deepening in response to waning U.S. reliability.