Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World

Imagine a vast poker table where each nation guards its chips closely, watching the others, waiting for a chance to play its hand. This is the essence of the G-Zero world — a global stage where no one leads, and every nation acts in its own interest. This means that the old frameworks of global leadership, like the G7 or even the G20, no longer function as effective platforms for cooperation. The story of the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit paints a vivid picture. Leaders gathered with high hopes, but the summit ended in acrimony and failure. China’s premier stayed away from key meetings, mistrust filled the room, and no binding agreements emerged. This wasn’t just a failure of diplomacy; it was a symptom of a deeper problem — the lack of a leader capable of guiding the world through shared challenges.

The G-Zero is not just a concept but a reality born from the shifting balance of power. The United States, once the unquestioned leader, faces internal challenges — soaring debt, political polarization, and a public increasingly focused on domestic concerns. Meanwhile, emerging powers like China and India are preoccupied with their own development and not yet ready to shoulder global responsibilities. Without a willing and able leader, the world drifts into fragmentation and uncertainty.

This absence of leadership affects everything from climate change to economic stability and security. In this new world, cooperation becomes difficult, and crises are harder to manage. Yet, this is not a tale of decline alone; it is a moment of transition, fraught with risk but also with the possibility of new forms of leadership emerging. As we explore further, we will see how this vacuum shapes global politics and what it means for nations and individuals alike.

Let us now turn to the historical journey that led us here, tracing the rise and fall of global leadership and the forces that carved the path to the G-Zero.