[macspoofing]

>This is a bold claim on a very much debatable subject, where it would come down to what "war" is, if it is the same with armed conflict/incident (like opposing force against a robbery), and so on.

No. It's not debatable. Show me an example of an extended peace between nations outside of the borders of an empire. This is almost a tautology to say that you need a central authority to have a monopoly of force. Otherwise you're in the 'tragedy of commons' scenario.

>There are many countries, even neighboring ones (like Serbia and Romania), that say that have never been in a war against each other.

Certainly they don't want to, but that's immaterial, they aren't allowed to. They are within the sphere of American order.

>As to the commendation of living within an empire, that is just helplessness against empire's overpowering forces, which is far from the general idea of "peace" as in Wikipedia-defined "societal friendship and harmony in the absence of hostility and violence".

Well ... OK ... that's all we have.

[userulluipeste]

"Certainly they don't want to, but that's immaterial, they aren't allowed to. They are within the sphere of American order."

If we are referring to the Serbia-Romania example, the peace track record is way longer before what you call American order to be a thing (and even longer if we'd count peace between their people, before statehood), then afterwards it's safe to say that they kept their peace despite America's interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia