That's the state of the world in 2030. The collapse and balkanizations were peaceful and the independent republics are stable, or at least as stable and peaceful as the former Soviet republics were by 2000.
Given that, what is the US role in the world, then? Is it the premiere hyperpower in the world again, almost by default, and for the forseeable future? Does a future in this reality make you feel better or worse?
Well the peaceful nature of the Balkanization is good news.
The USA would definitely be the premiere hyperpower in the world again and for the foreseeable future. I don't see the EU forming a powerful confederation to rival us (given their current economic and political conditions).
Edit: I don't see China balkanizing though. It hasn't had too many periods in its history of Balkanization and there's a good deal of national unity in much of the country (at least for a country of 1.2-1.4 billion people). Maybe Tibet and Taiwan breakoff, but I don't think much more would.
For China, places that want independence are
-Tibet
-Hong Kong
-Macau
-the western Muslim provinces
-and Inner Mongolia wants to be part of Mongolia
-northeast China (Manchuria) has always been a little different too
(Taiwan is already de facto independent)
Umm no, noisy individuals are not proof that regions want independence.
First of all there is absolutely no chance of sepratism suceeding in Inner Mongolia simply by virtue of the fact that 80% of the population is Han. I should also mention that if anything it has remained relatively stable, even a slight drop from 83% in 1949 if anybody tries to compare this to Soviet settlement policies in the Baltics.
Secondly claiming that Manchuria is diffirent from China may have been true in a historical sense, but it looks ridiculous to deny it's part of "core" China today. The region today is overwhelmingly Han today due to the Chuang Guangdong, a mass migration comparable to the settlement of the American west which rendered the Manchu ruling class a tiny minority in their homeland and soon after faced pressure to assimilate from the newcomers, a situation comprable to the demographic deluge the Tejanos and Californios faced after annexation. Claiming the Chinese Manchurians are diffirent than your average Chinese is like a Texan trying to deny the southern origins of their state-the settlement patterns prove the oposite is true.
Even Xinjiang is unlikely. Due to their almost even demographics, as well as the fact that the Han and assimilated Turks are concentrated in the cities, making them integral to the power structure if the centeral government were to weaken.
Hong kong, which has been more prominent in western media due to thier protests only has 17.4 percent supporting independence with 56.7 against.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-survey-idUSKCN1050GTAs for Macau, I won't comment much on this one, but from what I know they have a similar status/rights as Hong Kong, so it would be safe to assume that the relative lack of civil unrest implies less support for sepratism vis-a-vis Hong Kong
The only region that truly stands a chance at independence is Tibet, if centeral government weakens and the people truly want it only external force could stop it from happening. The only poll I have seen mentioned is one by the Tibetan Government in Exile, with 29% aupporting independence, and another 47% supporting "true autonomy". Of course it is hard to know what people are actually thinking with the chilling effect in place, and complicated even further if you want to know if they just oppose the CPC or Chinese governance altogether, so I will demur on Tibet.
If you really wanted to seperate something from "core" China then the last opportunity was in the 19th century when a colonial power could have established a puppet state in the liguostically different south and over time built up some sort of Cantonese identity, although I still doubt sentiment for unification would have been extinguished.
