i do not want to derail the topic under discussion in the ukraine thread, so i have posted my thoughts here
the us, if not a counterfeit rome, is a continuation of the mediterranean statecraft, ergo, currently a mixture of rome and carthage, the 2 strongest med powers at the same time
meditarranean sea outlook
 Aristotle (384–322) discusses Carthage in his work, Politica; he begins: "The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government." He briefly describes the city as a "mixed constitution", a political arrangement with cohabiting elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, i.e., a king (Gk: basileus), a council of elders (Gk: gerusia), and the people (Gk: demos).[132] Later Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 204–122, Greek) in his Histories would describe the Roman Republic in more detail as a mixed constitution in which the Consuls were the monarchy, the Senate the aristocracy, and the Assemblies the democracy. [ /quote]
so a common theme in the makeup of state apparatus in atleast 2 med powers
Aristotle remarked also:
Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent. The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution; the Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant.
so very unlike rome, but very much true for the us
In Carthage the people seemed politically satisfied and submissive, according to the historian Warmington. They in their assemblies only rarely exercised the few opportunities given them to assent to state decisions. Popular influence over government appears not to have been an issue at Carthage. 
Being a commercial republic fielding a mercenary army, the people were not conscripted for military service, an experience which can foster the feel for popular political action. But perhaps this misunderstands the society; perhaps the people, whose values were based on small-group loyalty, felt themselves sufficiently connected to their city's leadership by the very integrity of the person-to-person linkage within their social fabric. Carthage was very stable; there were few openings for tyrants. 
the us is a commercial republic, it is the basis of their charter and constitution, they do not have a mercenary army in the classical form, what i mean is that the composition of people serving in the armed forces is now heavily leaning towards peoples who do not have a common origin with this civilisational philosophy; also, carthage had a strong navy and indifferent army, which was the opposite for rome
the us is also very stable, damnably so, and the explanation usually provided for this cause is the stability in the society, and few opening for tyrants 

i posit that the mahanian philosophy is a continuation of this meditarranean civilisational outlook, from the structure of the government, to outlook on trade and societal advancement; this also means that the us forces the arena and its encumbering baggage onto seas that it deems meditarranean, earlier the atlantic was the med, all the relevant powers on both sides of the atlantic were forced to adopt the above med civilisational policy, though to many it looked to be the us hegemony
now, the us has made the indo-pacific the meditarranean, ergo all relevant powers to both sides of this new sea must necessarily adopt the med civilisational outlook