Geopolitical infrastructure initiatives are widely portrayed as zero-sum contests that privilege firms aligned with sponsoring states. International business research, however, under-theorizes how managers interpret such geopolitical projects and how these interpretations shape interfirm relations. Drawing on social constructivism in international relations, we adapt Wendt’s (1992) “cultures of anarchy” to conceptualize geopolitical projects as socially constructed arenas of firm interaction. Drawing on 24 semi-structured interviews with managers from German multinational enterprises in infrastructure-related sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa, we examine how the Belt and Road Initiative is framed and enacted in strategic decision-making. Our findings identify three overlapping logics: Hobbesian (competition as geopolitical struggle), Lockean (bounded rivalry under rules and mutual recognition), and Kantian (cooperation around shared goals and complementarities). We contribute to the literature by explaining heterogeneity in firm behavior under the same geopolitical project, advancing micro-foundations of geopolitics in IB, and showing how rivalry and collaboration can co-exist within the BRI.