We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas of how things should be.
Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese politics. My guess is they will start with harassment of neighbouring countries, and just move on from there. Likely eventually forcing/negotiating a surrender, rather than WW3, on account of our pacifist intents.
ATM we would win. Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to provoke war on our terms. A war we would win - with large casualties. A war we should fight if we like democracy and individualistic financial economy, and that form of "do whatever you want" that we have. That is, if you believe China would actually end up fighting, rather than becoming as pacifist as the west. If you have ever spoken to Chinese, you will know the latter to be less likely than the former. Of course, the world is banking on peace - given we are allowing China to advance.
I do hope that China intentionally turns itself pacifist. It would save a lot of lives, money and time. It's borders are large enough, most would say. I cannot pretend to know "what China wants", so I cannot really say how it will behave. My talks with Chinese have shown a pride in their ignorance of politics. And a government in exclusively self-checked control.
As a side note: I would propose we split the world into countries of equal population, introducing a GDP based tax to (softly) ease imbalance between these new nations. It only requires a bye-bye to nationalism. The size of each nation should be chosen based on evidence of that size being effective - which sizes of government perform better. The internal structure of a nation is quite moot. Whatever works. War would be illegal. Natural resources and permissible pollution should be auctioned on a global market. We can have a shared (UN?) court for determining things like permissible pollution and settling lawsuits that are carried all the way up. For settling disputes between nations, and their adherence to global law.
I'd like to see "timeliness of justice" to exist. I'd like to see the US' pieces remove it's landmines, and stop it's hollow points etc, and stop killing it's citizens without due process, and for Israel not to drop white phosphorous into civil areas, and for Russia not to annex nations, and for China to stop polluting the planet to beyond critical, for European nations to make good on their human rights promises regarding immigrants, for someone, anyone really, to stop ISIS' obvious human rights offenses, etc, etc, etc.
It should be politics like we're used to. Only we've levelled the players' fields to make the game better. And stand a chance at forcing good behaviour.
So, can we achieve this system? Of course not. But would it work? Well, not trivially, but yes, it would be better than the Pax Americana. Or, I guess, the peace of those that actually "run" the US. (probably some association(s?) of people with outrageous capital looking to expand their circle of capitalism/power to the rest of the world?)
Reg. brainwashing and individual power, I know you want brainwashing to be responsible, but most likely the brainwashing is generally improving the situation. People are the problem, not all, but many, and the brainwashing, through religion, television, smart filtering, is primarily making them behave in a way that is generally civilised and cooperative. I don't know what else it does, of course, but without the brainwash people are probably less nice, not more nice, and individual control is just awful. If only because less disparity means less friction means less trouble. If you want to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon as things start looking better, it starts looking more like government.