> De-globalizing certainly helps in all round development of all countries
How? Globalization allows companies to exploit comparative advantages, such as cheap labor. The increased demand for labor, over time, leads to higher wages, which leads to a number of social and - obviously - economic benefits.
It's certainly not the end all, be all, but better living conditions through economic activity is the primary driver the large decline in extreme poverty that's occurred over the last half-century. Globalization didn't play a role in all of this - export-led economic policies, along with targeted investments in prestigious industries by many countries, also helped. However, this decline in poverty, at this magnitude - absolutely - would not have happened without globalization.
Case in point. In 1990, there were almost one billion people living in extreme poverty in East Asia, South-East Asia, and the Pacific. In 2017, that number fell to 27 million. Source: World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/10/07/global-....
> Concentrating all manufacturing in China leads to power centralization
Employment in the Chinese secondary sector is almost static over the last ten years. GDP from the secondary sector as a percentage of GDP is down significantly. While the size of the secondary sector in absolute numbers, iirc, has gone up, this is due to Chinese manufacturings moving towards higher priced exports.
China will likely continue to be world's largest manufacturer for a long time. However, there is nothing that suggests that global manufacturing continues to centralize there, and there are a - very, very, large - number of signs suggesting that companies are off-shoring away from China to lower cost countries.
> as is evident, and forms the basis of creation of another hegemony.
To quote Game of Thrones, "Power is Power". Russia has an economy that is smaller than Italy's by several hundred billion dollars. Russia also has a blue water navy and nuclear weapons.
> The effectiveness of military power goes only so far.
Agreed.
> There is no realistic scenario where the US and China go to war.
We can agree to disagree here. There is no reasonable scenario, but there are a number of realistic ones.
> So China has great leverage and will continually nibble its way to global dominance.
Let's assume that China's economic and demographic issues are beginning to catch up to them, which is very common for middle income export-led countries with poor demographics. They share borders with two nuclear armed countries and several other highly developed countries. Their largest trading partner is their largest "adversary". Their lines of communication run through other countries, and they are dependent on other countries for their energy needs. China also happens to be a highly heterogeneous country, which has been concealed by a thin-veneer of nationalism.
In short, China much more closely resembles 19th century Germany than it does 20th century Russia or the United States.