The world is much less interdependent than we have been led to believe by business journalism.  It's much more of one way street that benefits America and her allies/partners.

That job has been sent to China, not because it had to be, but because that was the most profitable decision for the elite. This elite has become destructive and parasitical. The economy that is run in their interest is sucking the wealth out of the bottom 99.3% of the US population for the benefit of the top 0.7%, give or take a few tenths of a percent. This model of military backed domination has been extended not just to the rest of the world, but to the domestic population as well. Perhaps you are o.k. with that but I am not.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

This is rhetorical statement. The same applies to US to go to war with China or Russia. US would be obliterated in any nuclear holocaust.

False statement because of the word "only the US". The power of US for example in South East Asia was in mix of economic and military ties which are on the wane by all accounts, even Thailand and Indonesia are drifting away from US. After decades of lobbying US was admitted into East Asian Forum only humiliatingly together with Russia which obviously had had less interests in this region.

Then the West indeed has currently dominated international organizations but everything is changing. Take for example Moody's with atrocious rate of 80-90% of failures which were rated AAA obviously will be replaced and why not by Dagong?

Again unsubstantiated statement. China has money why it can't secure the foreign resources? What happen with Australia (and other resource-based economies like Canada) if China launch sanctions against them? China does not depend on American goodwill to get access to them.

Empty rhetorics without proof.

Again false assumption.