Imperialists, not globalists
For some time I have called those who want to control the world and end nations as globalists. I now believe the term is incorrect.
Instead, it is correct to call these folks imperialists. They want a global empire, with every country subservient to the US, which they think they can control.
Even back in the Cold War, the only criteria for an ally versus an enemy was whether a country agreed to obey the US and open its markets to US companies. The US supported many dictators and tyrants and really didn't care about democracy or even capitalism as long as the country obeyed.
In 1992-3, when faced with an opportunity to retreat from empire, Washington instead insisted on maintaining the unipolar moment, as if times would never change.
In an empire, there is no concern for the heartland and that is why the imperialists have so weakened America. Bringing in hordes of migrants isn't a new idea for an empire.
The British empire ended up hurting the homeland in its collapse and then the Queen cared about being the ruler of the various former colonies more than the United Kingdom. Now London isn't English and England is dying.
The foolish war in Ukraine is typical of late empires overextending themselves. It was an unnecessary war of choice, poorly conceived, in arrogance. It was doomed to failure.