While the Lieven's contention that "the current world order is the heir of European empire" is a weighty argument to make, I think he defends it quite well. European globalization in the half-century before World War I, Lieven argues, set the precedent for the "war to end all wars" itself. As barriers between European states became more and more porous, sentiments held by some factions of European societies such as antisemitism began to spread more rapidly than before.
Lieven's "second phase" of globalization, which began after the second world war, has been led by the United States. But the new brand of globalization has risen on the shoulders of the European empires. Even now, in the modern "post-imperialist" age, the world powers - such as the United States and Great Britain - still manifest "some nostalgia for empire." At the domestic level, says Lieven, a certain level of arrogance is present. Britain's new museum in Bristol is reminiscent of the old "glory days" of the British empire. The various problems that exist in the post-colonial states today are blamed on inept local governments, whether or not their origins can be traced directly to colonial rule.
Although the US is founded on ideologies of "anti-imperial struggle," current events have thrown the disparity between the rebellious breakaway English colony of yore (the early US) and the imperialistic international hegemon (the present day US) into sharp relief. The recent actions of the United States seem to directly contradict a great number of things which the US originally stood for. At present, according to Lieven, the US is the only remaining empire. How long the US will remain in this position of power remains to be seen; drawing comparisons to bygone empires such as the British empire can help to evaluate some of the decisions the US makes as an empire, but there is no accurate way to predict how long the empire will last.