Jorge Costa Oliveira
Traditionally, the liberal international order led by the United States and the European Union after the collapse of the USSR and the failure of the Marxist–Leninist economic model was based on positive-sum thinking – the idea that global trade and multilateral institutions would benefit all countries. In fact, the gradual globalization driven by trade multilateralism and the reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers increased global wealth, channeled massive investment into developing countries (including the relocation of companies from developed economies), lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and created new markets across the developing world. At the same time, globalization and multilateralism fostered deep interdependence among the major economic blocs, as well as the rise of several middle powers (Brazil, India, Mexico) and a new economic superpower (China).
The transition in the international system from unipolar hegemony to a multipolar reality has brought the concept of the zero-sum game back to the center of the debate. This thesis holds that one party’s gain (e.g., Russia or China) necessarily represents an equivalent loss for another (e.g., the United States). Washington appears to have adopted this view, treating economic interdependence not as a bond of peace but as a strategic vulnerability (“weaponized interdependence”), shaping U.S. foreign relations today: if China expands its technological influence, U.S. national security declines.
Moreover, the adoption by American leadership of zero-sum logic has turned global trade into a national security battleground. In 2026, this mindset is not limited to containing rivals but extends to renegotiating agreements with long-standing allies, based on the neo-mercantilist premise that any trade deficit constitutes a loss of economic sovereignty.
While the U.S. zero-sum posture may protect security interests in the short term, it disrupts efficient supply chains and raises costs for end consumers. In addition, challenges that require positive-sum solutions – such as climate change and pandemics – become hostage to geopolitical competition. Many countries in the Global South have no desire to choose sides, instead preferring an “active nonalignment” to extract benefits from both poles.
Although the U.S. zero-sum geopolitical stance may appear defensively pragmatic, it risks turning multipolarity – which could be collaborative – into a constant and unnecessary confrontation, promoting economic fragmentation and even generating avoidable risks for the United States itself.
A clear example is the current attack on Iran, which appears aimed at weakening the military power of the Middle East’s leading military force, a sworn enemy of Israel and aligned with China within the BRICS framework, while also demonstrating that the United States can control oil and gas trade involving yet another major producer – whose output, like Venezuela’s, is largely directed toward China. However, while China’s access to oil and gas may indeed have become more expensive, there is no corresponding benefit for Western countries – including the world’s largest producer, the United States. Instead, it jeopardizes inflation control and threatens the massive investments in data centers by major technology companies (almost all American). Hyperscalers, already straining power grids, are now competing for the same base energy capacity, which is becoming more expensive by the day.
The construction of AI infrastructure – on which the U.S. economy depends to avoid slipping into recession – has become a critical stage in a zero-sum contest for energy resources.
linkedin.com/in/jorgecostaoliveira
No Comments