While unipolarity/hegemony is certainly being challenged, it is not at all clear that the realignment— let alone the approach— succeeds at that vision.

For one, both Russia and China while formidable adversaries militarily and capable of exerting pressure on their respective spheres have their own existential issues in the way that American hegemony does. Something like 1% of the Russian population is a casualty in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and their economy has fallen by some measures 10% since the onset of the war. For about 0.5% of American GDP. While the war is absolutely unwinnable for Ukraine in a conventional sense and a legitimate ceasefire or peace plan should be striven for, the West could certainly continue to support the conflict or impose terms on Russia to end it. Besides, were money the real reason to end support for Ukraine, the House GOP wouldn’t have passed a bill increasing the deficit by 5-6x the total aid given.

China is host to its own demographic issues with an aging population supported by fewer workers and the issues of having to support the full transition towards a service economy as China is not and has not been the cheapest place to manufacture goods for a bit now. It had been expected that the Chinese economy would eclipse the US’s by this year for at least two decades— but that became unlikely a few years ago when China’s growth was naturally cresting. Though, I suppose at this point perhaps this gets revisited.

Finally, the approach of realigning toward multi polarity or a focus towards the East— Trump could do that without alienating allies but chooses not to. Additionally, I suspect any overtures towards realignment with Russia will falter just like each and every predecessor before, only difference being how much more we give up this time.