We can test this theory by looking at instances where coalition members' sovereign interests conflict with Washington's interests. Who ultimately gets their way?
There was an analogous study done IIRC in the late 90s where policy interests of poor vs. rich Americans were compared. In virtually every case, the rich/powerful people got their way, despite the poor constituents having vastly more democratic power on paper. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone living in America.
I believe it's the same story for this Western nominal "coalition". The cases where Washington compromises on its interests are rare and not conceded without a fight. Did Germany really consent to its pipelines getting blown up by another coalition member? Is it really in European interests to suffer massive economic blowback from sanctions? And then Washington's interest gets rebranded "common interest" without much investigation.
The bottom line is that elite-aligned liberals (in the classical sense) like the author are blind to the machinations of power. They presume a priori that the status quo is natural, structural and broadly consented to, rather than imposed through the vast and tireless efforts of an enormous, mostly-unelected power complex (media, financial, military, intelligence) based in Washington DC.
...and that power complex is gradually collapsing, partly because of these ideological blinders which hamstring action.