voting spectrum ranging from zero to ten. the middle. Of course, relations between Explicitly, we did not define this spectrum countries are dynamic. The United States economies. We then took the geopolitical definition, diverged over some high-profile distance between any two economies to beUN General Assembly votes in 2025. But this has happened before; UN votes are a analytical measure of geopolitical position, noisy measure of geopolitical alignment, Korea, and the United States sit near one session to session. Time will tell if recent end of a spectrum, while China and Russia sit closer to the other end (Exhibit 25). Economies hold different geopolitical positions. Overall, the analysis includes 201 votes, or about 15 percent of all UN General Assembly votes from 2005 to 2022. Since many votes were procedural or repeated, we included only votes designated as “important" by the US Department of State. See "Geopolitics and the geometry of global trade, McKinsey Global Institute, January 17, 2024. Analysis excludes economies that do not vote at the UN General Assembly. We conducted robustness checks over different time windows between 2005 and 2022 and found that for many economies-including China, European economies, Japan, South Korea, and the United States-geopolitical position by our measure did not vary significantly. However, the position of some economies, such as Brazil and Mexico, was more variable, though always toward the center of the spectrum. At 250, sustaining America's competitive edge