It doesn't actually solve anything, rather it makes the baseline lower by hurting everyone. I.e., it's an anti-solution - something that actively makes things worse, and can only make things worse, but masquerades as a solution.

An example of an anti-solution is lowering crime by making something that was illegal no longer illegal (see: public transit vs automobiles). Or, reducing the incidence of something by making it illegal while simultaneously increasing it's necessity (see: abortion). Or, solving wage inequality by protesting minimum wage increases.

Better to lower baseline for everyone than to be the naive sucker that gets taken advantage of

Right, but objectively it's not, because both parties experience either same or worse outcomes. So it's not better, by definition of "better".

Do you consider yourself as naive?

It makes the whole world blind

No, there'd be one person left with an eye. They could just dodge the last blind person.

agreeing with the point the question makes here; the game theory of global politics does not work with the same morals that we prescribe individual people