Stay ahead of the curve with our expert analysis on geopolitical risks and their impacts on businesses. Our blog is designed for business and security leaders who need to understand the complexities of the global landscape and make informed decisions.
We bring you the latest developments and in-depth insights, drawing from our extensive experience working directly with companies facing geopolitical challenges. New content is published at least weekly, ensuring you are always up-to-date with the most relevant information.
Want more? Sign up for our newsletter to receive updates directly to your inbox. Explore our Intelligence Requirements to discover the critical questions you should be asking about the latest developments, and delve deeper into specific topics with our curated reading lists. Join our community of informed leaders and stay ahead in the ever-evolving world of geopolitics.
Welcome to our Blog
11 September 2024 - Terrorism the Ever Present Danger
Today is the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. While America continues to mourn the losses from that day, it also reminds us of the persistent threat from terrorists who wish to do us and our principles harm. Because terrorism constantly threatens governments, corporations, and populations, security organizations regularly incorporate the risks from this specific type of political violence into their assessments.
Of course, terrorism has a long history. The first group that engaged in what we now call terrorism was the Zealots of first-century Palestine who would stab Romans and collaborators before disappearing into a crowd (interestingly, one of Jesus’s Apostles belonged to this group). Throughout the centuries there were other groups like the Assassins of Persia and Thugi of India. However, terrorism became significantly more prominent in the late 1800s and throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. In the United States, an anarchist terrorist killed President McKinley in 1901 while during this time right-wing terrorists (KKK) harassed and targeted black Americans. During the Cold War, Marxist terrorists persistently threatened politicians with targeted assassinations and kidnapping. At the turn of the century, al-Qaeda committed the largest terrorist attack in history on 9/11, killing almost three thousand people.
Terrorism has taken place all over the world, destroying the civic peace expected in society. Security professionals must consider how the threat of terrorism is evolving in the modern period. Often throughout the last century, different ideologies tend to dominate at different points. In the early 1900s, it was anarchists, but in the mid-1900s it was ethno-nationalist and left-wing terrorism. By the late 1900s, terrorism was dominated by right-wing extremists while we saw the rise of Islamist terrorism. Currently, the evidence suggests right-wing terrorism is the dominant threat in the West, but Islamist terrorism is the biggest threat in Africa and the Middle East.
This anniversary should remind security professionals that terrorism remains a constant threat to organizations and governments. And it should also remind them threats can manifest from around the world if they do not pay attention.
4 September 2024 - Pandemics and Geopolitics
Pandemics have influenced a considerable amount of human history, playing a critical role in shaping societies. Even the Bible named pestilence as one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. In Rome, the Antonine plague of the second century AD claimed 25% of the empire. A plague in Athens during the Peloponnesian War contributed to the city’s defeat. The Black Death in fourteenth-century Europe killed approximately a third of the continent, which ironically helped many countries by increasing wages and allowing for better nutrition. Just over a century ago, the Spanish Flu that happened at the end of World War I helped lead to the malaise of the period, killing millions of people globally. Most recently, the Covid-19 pandemic caused major socio-political and economic disruptions, not just due to health problems, but also the political responses. Such pandemics, plagues, and poxes are a regular part of the human condition that occur frequently, if unpredictably.
Once again, corporations and security teams need to assess the risks (political and otherwise) of pandemics. Mpox has been declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the second time in two years, due to a surge in cases in Central Africa and the emergence of a new, severe subtype. The first PHEIC in 2022 followed a multi-country outbreak affecting nearly 100,000 people, including 32,000 in the U.S. The risk of the current outbreak spreading globally is considered low, but the emergence of the new subtype called clade Ib in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has raised concerns. This new strain, which has spread rapidly through sexual networks, is part of clade I and tends to cause more severe illness compared to the milder clade II strain, which was responsible for the 2022 outbreak.
Governments are significantly less likely to respond to Mpox like they did to Covid, even if it spreads rapidly. Public trust in government declined because of pandemic mismanagement and hypocrisy and most governments are extremely unlikely to do anything to cause similar economic damages as they did during Covid. According to the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at USC, the Covid pandemic cost the United States $14 trillion (through 2023). They reached that number by looking at lost revenue from mandatory lockdowns and modeling shifts in personal behavior and consumption. Other research showed the detrimental impact the pandemic had on energy prices, access to critical semiconductors, and cost of living.
The political and geopolitical implications of pandemics need to be considered, especially in how those implications will impact business operations. Everything from health diplomacy and cooperation to economic impacts to available resources to supply chains to humanitarian problems to scientific advancement is part of modern pandemics. Like with other major political and security risks, organizations need to prepare.
28 August - Ukraine’s Offensive and Drone Strikes on Russian Territory
Ukraine’s ongoing offensive in Russia’s Kursk region and the intensification of drone attacks on Russian soil is a deliberate shift in Kyiv’s strategy. These operations aim to disrupt Russian logistics, weaken defenses, and demonstrate the conflict's consequences to the Russian population. The use of Western-supplied weapons, such as British Challenger tanks and American HIMARS rocket systems, has been central to these efforts.
Ukraine’s focus on targeting key infrastructure, like bridges and oil refineries, serves multiple objectives. First, it disrupts Russia’s ability to sustain military operations by creating logistical challenges and damaging economic assets. By striking oil refineries, Ukraine had reportedly affected up to 17% of Russia’s refining capacity, hoping to directly impact the financing of Russia’s war effort. Additionally, these strikes expose vulnerabilities in Russian security and force Moscow to spread its defenses thinner, weakening its ability to concentrate forces on the frontlines.
Beyond physical damage, these operations also serve as psychological warfare. By carrying out deep strikes within Russian territory, Ukraine directly challenges Putin’s narrative of security, creating uncertainty and fear among the Russian populace. These attacks aim to force the Russian leadership to divert resources to defend areas previously thought secure, further straining their war effort.
While these actions are effective in exerting pressure, they risk triggering harsher Russian responses. Moscow may escalate air and missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure or increase sabotage activities across Europe, targeting entities supporting Ukraine’s defense. Intelligence reports already indicate a rise in Russian covert operations, including attempts to assassinate key figures involved in Western arms supplies to Ukraine.
Nuclear threats have also resurfaced as a key part of Russia’s deterrence strategy. While the likelihood of nuclear use remains low, Putin’s rhetoric becomes more aggressive when facing setbacks. An escalation in Ukrainian attacks inside Russia could lead to more such threats. The main triggers for potential nuclear escalation include Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to target deep within Russia, sustained attacks on Russian infrastructure, or if Russia feels it is losing the war or if its domestic stability is seriously at risk.
21 August 2024 - What is Liberalism
Modern political ideologies have their roots in the Enlightenment, though their fundamentals stretch back further. The Enlightenment began what we now call liberalism by challenging established institutions, traditions, and customs in favor of liberty and equality. John Locke is regarded as the founder of liberalism, basing his philosophy on the social contract (consent of the governed), where government purpose is to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke wrote during the late 1600s when England overthrew the Stuart monarchy and installed William and Mary of Orange during the Glorious Revolution. Shortly after, Parliament passed the English Bill of Rights, embodying the Enlightenment's liberal ideas. As Locke stated in Second Treatise of Government, “[T]hat being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Chapter II, section 6). Classical liberalism would later be politically applied by figures like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but would not remain.
Modern liberalism began in the late 1800s when thinkers sought to expand the government’s role to address Victorian-era problems such as workers' rights, immigration challenges, and severe poverty. The connection between classical and modern liberalism lies in their shared focus on liberty and equality, though the Progressives redefined these concepts. Liberty was no longer just negative rights (freedom from government interference) but also positive rights (access to certain goods and services). Equality evolved from being purely legal equality to incorporating social and material equality. American presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman advanced these ideas, as did European leaders like David Lloyd George, Clement Attlee, and Willy Brandt.
Another reinterpretation of liberalism took place in the 1960s, introducing a new emphasis on absolute social equality that diverged from traditional understandings of liberty. This form of liberalism, now often labeled as "wokism" but better described as post-modern liberalism, replaced Locke’s social contract with a Rousseauian version. For instance, whereas classical and modern liberals championed free speech, this latest iteration often opposes it, asserting a right not to be offended rather than a right to express one’s views. Post-modern liberalism argues that reality is determined entirely within the self (solipsism), and any challenge to that reality is harmful, reflecting a radical reinterpretation of Millian utilitarianism.
The political left is undergoing an ideological battle between classical, modern, and post-modern liberalism. The Democratic Party in the United States is navigating this internal conflict, and the upcoming election will serve as a referendum on which prevails. This will have far-reaching implications for everything from protests to future elections.
14 August 2024 - Nationalism in Europe
European nationalism is invariably (and understandably) associated with war, conflict, and genocide. Whether it was the revolts of 1848 or the Serbian nationalists who started World War I by assassinating the Archduke or Nazism in Germany engulfing the continent in World War II or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans with the breakup of Yugoslavia, nationalism has frequently been a critical variable and cause of war.
European nations sought to abrogate the negative influences of nationalism by creating the supranational European Union, creating a shared economic sphere that would integrate all the countries and make nationalist conflict unfathomable.
However, that does not mean nationalism has died out. Rather, nationalism is returning because of the overwhelming failure of the European project. The EU imposed rules and regulations that went against the principle of subsidiarity, such as farming policy, and many local customs, such as forcing Catholic countries to accept secular values. These impositions catalyzed the return of nationalist revolts, most importantly Brexit.
Voters in the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union to gain greater control over their fiscal, regulatory, and immigration policies. Importantly, the vote to leave the EU occurred with a slim margin (51.89% to 48.11%), which shows that these nationalist tendencies do not need to be the overwhelming majority of a country.
Besides Brexit, nationalist shifts have taken place in the Netherlands with protests by farmers and the election of right-wing populists in places like Poland, Hungary, and Italy. Even the supposedly liberal countries of France and Germany are now having to contend with nationalist and right-wing parties, again due to the failures of the European project and the perception of governments unwilling to listen to their citizens.
While Europe is unlikely to descend into the same nationalist violence as before, the rise of nationalism across the continent does indicate that the EU and supranational organizations will likely decline over the medium term. In addition, if these nationalist governments can ameliorate economic and social problems in places like Italy, then similar parties are highly likely to gain traction elsewhere. This would fundamentally alter the current political and geopolitical landscape as these parties are (generally) less hostile to Russia, opposed to immigration, and opposed to neoliberal economics.
08 August 2024 - Multipolarity: The New Normal
Historically, the international order was predicated on multipolarity punctuated by unipolar moments when a truly grand empire took over. That multipolarity is returning not so much because of the decline of the United States, but rather because of the “rise of the rest.” No longer can the US count on being the undisputed global hegemon, and peer competitors and regional powers alike are taking notice. A central element of Russia’s foreign policy is promoting and seeking multipolarity. This is done because Russia knows it is not capable of challenging the United States or Europe by itself. Rather, Russia will need the support of regional powers, such as the military juntas in Africa, to compete more effectively.
On the other hand, China has to be more careful in how they, promote and handle multipolarity as rising powers are more likely to balance against the Middle Kingdom. Several potential and current middle powers in Asia, such as India, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam, all have the potential for conflict with China over territory, trade interests, and general security. Not only does China need to be concerned with those balancing against them, but they will need to be concerned about being drawn into a conflict by countries they try to use against regional competitors. For example, Pakistan could very well bring China into a war with India, or arbitrary brinkmanship could reignite war on the Korean Peninsula. China was successful in managing multipolarity before, e.g., opening with the US to balance against the USSR. But that was when they were a rising power, not the one seeking hegemony.
How the United States decides to handle multipolarity will also be essential to forecasting global events. Similar to China, the US historically managed multipolarity as a rising power. It was not until after the Cold War and the unipolar moment that the US stood above all others. The unipolar moment, though, was just that: a moment. By the second George W. Bush administration (2005-09), America was already facing the rise of BRICS, peer competition with China, failures in military interventions, and a difficult global financial crisis. Both Obama and Trump attempted to shift US strategy to a multipolar approach (Pivot to Asia and 2018 National Defense Strategy, respectively), but they faced problems that prevented a full shift.
Regional powers, such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, and Indonesia will all have their own views and approaches. Regional institutions like the EU and AU will also impact how multipolarity plays out over the coming decades. Multipolarity is coming back, which is to be expected, but the critical questions surround how great powers, middling powers, and smaller states will respond as an unbalanced international order promotes conflict and chaos.
24 July 2024 - The Geopolitics of Sport
George Orwell, in his essay The Sporting Spirit, famously remarked that "sport is war minus the shooting." Orwell’s statement neatly describes the intricate link between sport and geopolitics, a connection that has been evident throughout history.
One of the earliest examples of sport influencing geopolitics is the Nika Revolt of 532 AD in Constantinople. This riot, instigated by the rival chariot racing factions of the Blues and Greens, escalated into a political uprising against Emperor Justinian I. Showing how sporting allegiances can catalyze broader social and political upheaval.
In modern times, states express power through sport, with nations hosting the Olympics and other major events as demonstrations of prestige and influence. Hosting these events allows countries to showcase their cultural and economic strength on the world stage. The diplomatic tensions between Beijing and Washington at the end of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games over the medal counts or the tension around the Football (soccer) match between the US and Iran at the 2022 FIFA World Cup shows how geopolitical and sporting rivalry can overlap.
The need to demonstrate sporting prowess can sometimes lead to unethical practices, such as state-sponsored doping programs aimed at improving athletic performance and securing more medals. The infamous doping scandals of the Soviet Union and East Germany during the Cold War are prime examples. The Cold War era also saw sport being used as a political tool, with the US-led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the retaliatory Soviet-led boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics serving as symbolic gestures of ideological conflict.
In recent years, Gulf and Arab states have invested heavily in sports, owning football teams and hosting high-profile events like boxing matches and golf tournaments. These actions, often criticized as "sport washing," are seen as attempts to enhance their global image and distract from human rights issues. The acquisition of European football clubs by Gulf states and the hosting of the Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup illustrates this trend. This projection of status through sport is a form of soft power, reflecting the globalization of the sports economy and its significant social and economic stakes.
Moreover, sport has been used as a diplomatic tool in easing tensions, such as cricket diplomacy between India and Pakistan, which has intermittently helped to bridge political divides. However, sport has also been a target of terrorism, with tragic incidents such as the terrorist attacks at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan in 2009, highlighting the vulnerabilities of international sporting events to geopolitical violence.
The intersection of sport and geopolitics will continue to reflect broader social, political, and economic dynamics and is an important area to monitor and understand.
17 July 2024 - Right wing Populism and American Conservatism
American conservatism has gone through several stages of development since the American Revolution, and it is likely going through another change with Donald Trump and Trumpism having taken over the Republican Party. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, conservatism was primarily about establishing a centralized government and protecting the inherited liberties from the United Kingdom. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Jay led the way in this version of conservatism. Conservatism would not become a broader movement until the 1950s when William F. Buckley utilized fusionism to take over the Republican Party away from the “big government paternalism” of the New Deal and Great Society. Fusionism combined anticommunism, free market capitalism, and traditionalism to create modern American conservatism, best represented in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
However, fusionism would start to crack due to the Great Recession and failures of the Iraq War, and economic and social problems during the Obama administration would lead to the rise of a right-wing populist movement that would challenge the conservative establishment. The Tea Party was the forerunner to Trumpism, but his presidency would demonstrate the electoral viability of right-wing populism that combined the economic interests and the cultural values of the working and middle classes. Of course, populism is also not new to the United States, which has had a number of such movements. Jacksonian democracy brought populism to the front in the 1830s when he greatly expanded voting rights. The Know Nothing Party, William Jennings Bryan’s candidacy, McCarthyism, etc. were all populist movements that had a profound impact on American politics. However, these movements did not remain as political ideologies shift and change over time.
Conservative politics in the United States will have a tremendous impact on world stage as both Europe and Latin America are experiencing similar changes. All of these movements are shifting from the policies of fusionism to the kind of civic nationalism found in the current governments of Italy and Hungary. The transatlantic conservative alliance will determine everything from trade policies (e.g., higher tariffs and barriers) to the balance of power (e.g., being less hostile to Russia). Understanding the direction and changes of American conservatism will be critical to understanding the rise of right-wing populism globally and its impact on public policy.
10 July 2024 UK - Sick man of Europe?
The United Kingdom has gone through several political tribulations over the past decade, and with the election, the forming of a new government will determine whether Britain becomes the “sick man of Europe.” Economically, the UK has experienced slow economic growth in recent years, partly due to the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic's economic impacts. Public debt has risen significantly, partly due to increased spending during the COVID-19 pandemic and economic support measures, and persistent budget deficits require careful management to avoid fiscal instability and ensure sustainable public finances. More egregiously, the UK has struggled with low productivity growth compared to other advanced economies, which hampers economic competitiveness and wage growth.
British culture is not conducive to the entrepreneurism necessary to overcome this problem. This is combined with the trade barriers with the EU harming exports, reduction in foreign investment, and labor shortages in agriculture, technology, and healthcare. Finally, the UK has faced high inflation rates, driven by supply chain disruptions, energy price hikes, and other factors, leading to increased costs of living. Real wages have not kept pace with inflation, squeezing household incomes and reducing purchasing power.
The UK’s economic problems matter because of the role Britain plays in geopolitics. If the UK cannot manage these issues, there will be negative impacts on global stability. London is one of the world’s leading financial centers, playing a crucial role in global finance, banking, insurance, and trade. The UK’s economic policies and financial regulations have wide-reaching impacts. Its role in geopolitics is characterized by strategic military alliances, economic influence, diplomatic reach, and commitment to global issues such as security, development, and human rights. As a key player in international organizations and a major global financial center, the UK continues to exert considerable influence on the global stage. Despite leaving the European Union, the UK continues to play a key role in European security through NATO and bilateral security arrangements with European countries (especially in counterterrorism). The UK will remain influential because it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but if Britain does not fix certain fiscal issues, then it will not be able to adequately use power projection in NATO (although it is still more capable than France or Germany currently).
The recent election in Britain will determine the direction the country will go economically and geopolitically because its possible status as the “sick man of Europe” could harm global markets and the balance of power. Analysts need to track the oscillations in British politics and changes in policy approaches to assess the long-term path of the country and region.
3 July 2024 - Revolutions
"The British are coming! The British are coming!" These famous words marked the beginning of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775, dramatically altering the geopolitical landscape in unexpected ways. Although the United States eventually became a global hegemon, it took more than a century to achieve great power status.
The American Revolution illustrates two critical aspects of revolutions, serving as a useful case study in their successes and failures. First, revolutions often take time to be effective. America struggled for several decades to establish itself economically, facing several rebellions such as Shays’ Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Hartford Convention, and the Civil War. Additionally, the country had to revise its foundational document, necessitating the Constitutional Convention to address the flaws in the Articles of Confederation.
Despite their promise of significant social, political, or economic change, revolutions often fail and the negative impacts of failed revolutions can be profound and far-reaching. Revolutionary movements typically consist of diverse groups with differing agendas, and a lack of unified vision can lead to internal conflicts and power struggles. Effective leadership is crucial for maintaining cohesion and direction, and weak or divided leadership can result in disorganization and failure. President Washington addressed this issue by excluding Anti-Federalists from his administration while appointing competing factions (Jefferson and Hamilton) to his government. Many revolutions fail to manage this balance, leading to political, economic, and security problems.
The second aspect is the long-term geopolitical implications of revolutions. Short-term implications often arise from foreign intervention. External powers may support the existing government by providing military aid, financial support, or political backing to suppress the revolution. Neighboring countries or global powers may have vested interests in maintaining the status quo and preventing revolutionary success. If not for French intervention in the American Revolution, American independence would have been significantly less likely. France's involvement aimed to weaken the British Empire but ultimately triggered a series of events, including the failed French Revolution in 1789, the Quasi-War with the U.S., the Napoleonic Wars, and the Concert of Europe. Geopolitically, the American Revolution acted as a catalyst for major changes in Europe.
Finally, the United States emerged as a global hegemon about 200 years after the revolution. A long-term impact that would have been difficult to predict (except for Hamilton, who devised his economic system with this goal in mind). Nevertheless, analysts today should study past revolutions to understand how contemporary revolutions, rebellions, and coups might impact the political and geopolitical landscape over the longer term.
26 June 2024 - LGBTQ Geopolitics
June is celebrated as Pride Month around the world, and while many engage in promoting LGBTQ issues, there are an increasing number of political risks from this movement. First, the debate over transgender issues is likely to impact elections in the West. Many individuals hold traditional cultural or religious beliefs that view gender as binary and immutable and policies that recognize or support transgender rights can prompt a backlash, increasing support for conservative candidates who promise to uphold traditional values. This is not just in the US, the rightward shift in Europe and increasing support for right-wing parties is likely to be exacerbated by issues such as the inclusion of transgender topics in sex education or allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice or compete in certain sports.
Geopolitically, Western governments are likely to face problems in winning over strategically and economically important countries that have more traditional values if they continue to promote LGBTQ rights. There is already strong evidence of a “traditionalist” bloc forming in Africa against Western cultural values, and great powers like Russia are backing them. In March 2024, Russia designated the "LGBT movement" as an extremist organization, following a Supreme Court ruling from November 2023. This designation, managed by the Rosfinmonitoring agency, allows the government to freeze bank accounts of listed individuals and entities, which include various groups from Al Qaeda to Meta.
Currently, more than 60 countries have laws that criminalize homosexuality, and almost half of these countries are in Africa. Western governments have reduced or ended foreign aid over laws that criminalize homosexuality. For example, the World Bank halted new loans to Uganda due to its 2023 law, which the international organization says contradicts its core values. If Western governments and international organizations punish countries that try to protect their traditional values, then those countries will be significantly less likely to work with Western corporations that need access to natural resources. Western governments might have to choose between their cultural values and their economic interests.
Beyond political risks, corporations must consider their customer base and employees as well. Some companies have lost market share due to their support for LGBTQ politics, such as Bud Light, Disney, and Target. However, there is also pressure for companies to openly support LGBTQ rights. Corporations are likely to face difficult choices when engaging LGBTQ issues because there are highly likely to be tradeoffs when it comes to the supply chain, political risks, public policy, market access, and employee satisfaction. Corporations will need to make strategic decisions to determine what is best for them as this is likely to be a complex labyrinth of opportunities and risks over the medium term.
19 June 2024 - Hindu Nationalism and Indian Politics
While the election of Narendra Modi to a third term as Prime Minister of India did not include a majority for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), outside of an alliance, there are several important political and security implications for analysts to follow.
Within the Indian democracy, Modi will likely consolidate power within his party and within the broader political landscape. This could strengthen the dominance of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition at the national level. There will also likely be implications for India's institutions, including potential changes in the functioning of key bodies such as the judiciary, bureaucracy, and regulatory agencies. The critical factor will be Modi’s Hindu nationalism and how it has entered the mainstream political environment.
Importantly, Modi has made significant strides in shaping India's foreign policy, emphasizing economic diplomacy and strategic partnerships, and asserting India's global influence. His third term will likely provide continuity in these efforts, potentially strengthening India's position on the world stage, especially in the Indo-Pacific.
Hindu nationalism, often associated with the ideology of Hindutva, emphasizes India's historical and cultural ties with other countries that have Hindu or Dharmic influences (such as Nepal, Bhutan, and some Southeast Asian nations and non-state actors). This can lead to a foreign policy that seeks to strengthen cultural and people-to-people ties based on these shared civilizational roots.
India's projection of soft power is influenced by Hindu nationalist ideology, including cultural diplomacy and international outreach based on shared cultural values (e.g., Modi’s trip to Texas). While foreign policy is generally driven by national interests and strategic concerns, Hindu nationalism could influence perceptions of threats and allies, such as the alleged assassination of dissidents in Western countries.
This ideology could affect India's strategic alignments and military partnerships, but that is unlikely as typical great power politics will remain critical to decision-making (e.g., the Quad). As such, Modi and the BJP remaining in power will have a more significant impact on the domestic politics of India and the use of soft power in foreign policy, but security concerns will likely remain guided by the national interest when it comes to great power competition.
5 June 2024 - American Capitalism
Geopolitical risk for corporations must incorporate analysis on political economy and markets, which means understanding the United States. The US economy is the largest in the world with a GDP of $24.55 trillion ($76,329.58 per capita), and this is slightly larger than the entire GDP of the European Union. No other country can quite compare to how much money the US and Americans can spend. For example, the US federal budget is larger than the combined GDP of the UK and France. In 2022, US citizens and corporations Americans gave $499.33 billion to charity. This is more than the combined foreign aid by all OPEC members. When it comes to foreign aid and defense, the US spends more than any other country, and this allows NATO and other alliances to exist. Without such a robust and strong economy, the US could not afford to supplement the defense of the Western world.
During the early years of the Republic, Alexander Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, implemented several key policies that significantly contributed to the early economic development of the nation. His vision and strategies laid the groundwork for a strong federal government and a robust economy that would become accepted broadly during the 20th century. Hamiltonian economic policies were essential to American economic growth to this day, starting with a national bank that helps stabilize the national currency, manage debt, and create a uniform monetary system that is crucial for trade and economic stability (the Federal Reserve serves this purpose now). By creating a stable economic environment and a trustworthy financial system, Hamilton attracted both domestic and foreign investment. This influx of capital was critical for infrastructure development, such as roads, canals, and ports that facilitated commerce and trade. This is essentially the policy approach still used by the US today, and that continues to allow the American economy to be stronger than its counterparts in Europe and Asia.
How the US economy performs directly impacts the rest of the world, both negatively and positively. For example, the Great Recession started because of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States. However, the United States continues to drive significant advances in modern technologies that sustain economic growth. Geopolitical analysts need to understand the foundations of the US economy and how it will develop over the coming years to forecast changes in technology, finance, and security. Political choices will also matter in understanding these problems as well.
Insight Forward maintains that market economies are more organizationally efficient and beneficial, and the company will continue to analyze the impact to corporations from that perspective when assessing how the US economy will determine risks and opportunities.
4 June 2024 - Nuclear Weapons and Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin and senior officials have repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine. While the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used remains very low, these threats aim to deter Western support for Ukraine and they increase when Russia faces battlefield setbacks.
Last week, NATO members lifted restrictions on Ukraine using NATO-supplied weapons to target Russia directly. Previously, Putin had stated that using long-range missiles supplied by NATO to strike Russia could prompt a nuclear response. Ukraine is also regularly targeting Russian oil infrastructure with drone attacks. However, the damage caused so far is unlikely to prompt Russia to deploy nuclear weapons.
Potential triggers for nuclear weapon use include:
▪ Major damage or casualties within Russia from Ukraine's use of NATO-supplied weapons
▪ Russia fears an outright military defeat
▪ The conflict escalates into a broader Russia-NATO confrontation
▪ Putin's regime faces an existential threat of collapse
▪ Significant casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure from Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure
The use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is a very low-likelihood but high-impact scenario. In the following report, we outline the likely impacts of a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine.
Read the full report here
29 May 2024 - The Geopolitics of Climate Change
The last decade has been the warmest on record, increasing the likelihood of exceeding the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement. The changing climate has significant geopolitical, security, and business implications.
Geopolitics
Melting Arctic sea ice has made previously inaccessible areas navigable and available for resource extraction, leading to territorial disputes among nations such as Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the US. Disputes over carbon emissions and resources are also likely to increase. Water scarcity exacerbated by climate change is already linked to conflicts and disputes in stressed regions, such as the Nile River disputes between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Climate change is also driving global migration, displacing millions and this is expected to rise.
Protests and Civil Unrest
Movements like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Just Stop Oil have escalated civil disobedience, often staging demonstrations in urban centers and targeting corporations responsible for environmental harm. These protests, although generally non-violent, have occasionally led to unrest. As climate impacts worsen, the potential for more radical and violent protests increases.
Ecotage and Ecoterrorism
Ecotage (environmental sabotage) involves vandalism, sabotage, and arson aimed at organizations causing environmental damage. Attacks typically cause property damage rather than casualties and it remains the most common form of violent action by radical environmentalists. There is also an increasing risk of cyber-attacks, insider threats, and employee activism. Disgruntled employees may also leak sensitive data if companies fail to meet environmental pledges.
Ecoterrorism, intended to cause injury or death, is rare and usually not primarily motivated by environmental concerns. Notable figures like Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) and groups like Individuals Tending Towards Savagery (ITS) have carried out attacks partly motivated by environmental reasons, but it was not the primary reason for the attacks.
Additionally, extreme-right nationalist and anti-immigration ideologies include climate issues in their rhetoric. Individuals such as Anders Breivik, Brenton Tarrant, and Patrick Wood Crusius identified as eco-fascists in their manifestos, advocating for environmental preservation through extreme measures. As climate change leads to increased migration, this narrative may intensify, raising the risk of further attacks.
While sustained campaigns of violence or large-scale attacks by radical environmentalists are unlikely, targeted attacks against individuals or organizations are an increasing risk. Even a small number of violent acts can incite further violence. Organizations will be increasingly scrutinized for their environmental policies. Those failing to meet their pledges will face increased risks of litigation, activism, and even violence.
8 May 2024 - Geopolitics Beyond Land, Part 1: Maritime Security
This is the first entry in Insight Forward’s look at “geopolitics beyond land.” Everything from sea power to space to cybersecurity impacts geopolitical competition, but those topics are usually seen as separate from geopolitics proper. Insight Forward believes they are integral parts of modern geopolitics.
When Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman developed the discipline of geopolitics, they both focused on the Eurasian landmass as the central territory needed for hegemony. Yet great powers unconnected to the “heartland” were able to dominate whole regions through strong naval power. Maritime security was the essence of the power projection capabilities of both the British Empire and the United States.
Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote the most important text on naval warfare and its role in strategic dominance, and his ideas frame most subsequent thinking on how great powers could use their navies. Naval power projection remains central to the way nation-states seek regional and global hegemony. China consistently pushes its maritime borders knowing that dominating the South China Sea will make it the regional hegemon, and the US keeps naval bases globally to easily transport soldiers and weapons to secure its interests.
Some issues of maritime security such as piracy are perennial. Famously in 75 BCE, Julius Caesar was captured by pirates. Unhappy with the ransom amount they were demanding, he told them to increase it because of his importance. After the ransom was paid, he was given ships that he used to hunt down the pirates who had taken him captive. Now, Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean are one of the greatest threats to shipping, and nation-states expend significant resources to attempt to neutralize the threat.
Technology has created modern problems and there are significant risks for corporations from cyberattacks and undersea cables. Threat actors can disrupt shipping by spoofing and jamming locations as they rely on GPS for mapping. However, undersea cables create risks for everyone because they are quintessential to the internet. As the Hoover Institution points out, “Over 95 percent of international telecommunications flow via a fiber-optic undersea cable network that is increasingly vulnerable to both physical (mostly submarine-based) and cyberspace-based attacks.” Sabotage could fundamentally disrupt corporations’ ability to operate even at their headquarters.
The ocean covers much of the planet, and maritime transport remains crucial for global supply chains. Maritime security significantly affects corporations, with threats ranging from piracy to cyberattacks. Naval operations also play a key role in state power projection, occasionally leading to significant conflicts, such as the US entry into World War I or Japanese imperial expansion. Security professionals should consider these factors in their assessments to provide comprehensive insights for their clients.
15 May 2024 - Geopolitics Beyond Land, Part 2: Astropolitik
This is the 2nd entry in IF’s look at “geopolitics beyond land.” Sea power, space, and cybersecurity impact geopolitical competition, but are usually seen as separate from geopolitics proper. IF believes they are integral parts of modern geopolitics.
“Space. The final frontier.” That’s how the popular science fiction television show Star Trek opens each episode as the crew explores new worlds throughout the universe. Many techno-optimists and corporations have essentially accepted that premise as private entities pursue space exploration, possible colonization of the moon and Mars, satellite technology, and raw material extraction.
Yet before any of that can happen, corporations need to deal with the geopolitical competition over how space can help protect a country’s security and economic interests. The politics of space is novel to modernity, the Cold War included the “space race” in which both the US and the Soviet Union expended an extraordinary amount of resources to win. Sputnik in 1957 galvanized the US to send a man into space and then to the moon in the 1960s. This altered geopolitics as the competing superpowers realized they could weaponize space, but they would negotiate the Outer Space Treaty to limit WMDs there.
Investment in space exploration interestingly also had tangible benefits to people’s everyday lives and economic development. Such technologies include: wireless headsets, LED lighting, portable cordless vacuums, medical imaging techniques, durable healthcare equipment, artificial limbs, freeze-dried food, water filtration systems, solar panels, satellite TV, and memory foam all came from technology research for space.
Although the Cold War had the space race, modern issues are quite different. Governments are no longer the primary funders of space exploration and technology. Companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Varda, Relativity Space, and Northrop are leading space exploration rather than NASA or the European Space Agency. That does not mean governments do not play a role. Regulations immediately come to mind as a political risk for companies, but as space technology becomes critical to commercial development and power politics, how corporations handle geopolitical issues will determine their long-term efficacy.
For example, commercial satellites could be targeted by Russia and China in a conflict with the West, or these companies could be targeted with espionage or sabotage to help companies in those countries. Furthermore, WMDs might be banned in space presently, but many weapons could be developed and utilized (e.g., lasers or missile defense).
Managing the problems that come from geopolitical competition will be critical for companies in the space exploration business, but other companies that rely on space technology also need to understand how old-school power politics could impact (negatively or positively) their businesses as well.
22 May 2024 - Geopolitics Beyond Land, Part 3: Cyberspace
This is the 3rd and last in IF’s look at “geopolitics beyond land.” Sea power, space, and cybersecurity impact geopolitical competition, but are usually seen as separate from geopolitics proper. IF believes they are integral parts of modern geopolitics.
The last decade has shown the deep connection between cyberspace and the physical world. Warfare theorists and strategists had treated the “fifth domain” as a separate space, but events have shown how events in either cyberspace or the physical world can impact the other. Geopolitical issues have direct impacts on corporations in both cyberspace and the physical world.
Take for example the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. The physical security implications are clear. Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and violent protests in Western countries. However, there are cybersecurity implications as well. Anti-Israel hacktivists have attempted to participate in the conflict globally. Anonymous Sudan targeted organizations in Kenya because of the government’s support for Israel. Dark Storm Team targeted Snapchat in support of Palestinians, and Irox Team targeted companies in Brazil with connections to Israel. All of these were low-level, unsophisticated attacks, but they highlight how non-state actors outside of the region targeted companies and organizations connected to the war.
Nation-state actors are an even greater threat to corporations. The infamous NotPetya ransomware attack in 2017 devastated companies like Maersk, WPP, and Merck & Co. Sandworm (Voodoo Bear, IRIDIUM), an APT based in Russia’s military intelligence organization GRU, intended to harm Ukraine with the ransomware attack. However, it spread far beyond Ukraine because it could not be contained. A geopolitically motivated cyberattack by the Russian military had negative global impacts on corporations. China’s pursuit of regional hegemony has had similar impacts. Chinese APTs have targeted US technology companies like Google and Microsoft for theft of intellectual property and access to government communications.
Then there are information operations and how geopolitical actors utilize social media to spread mis/disinformation to influence politics. Russia, of course, has been the most effective at using disinformation because of the history of propaganda during the Soviet Union, but countries like China and Iran have entered this space as well. Disinformation is used to cause political frictions and threaten liberal democracy, and it has been used in “reputation warfare” against corporations (see Insight Forward’s report on this issue 👉 https://lnkd.in/eEawCmwm).
Analysts and security professionals need to look at cyberspace as part of the geopolitical competition in everything from cyberattacks to cyberwar to hacktivism to information operations.
1 May 2024 - The Risk of Assassinations
Hollywood movies often portray assassinations as being carried out by a highly trained ninja-like figure firing a rifle from half a mile away or secretly climbing through a building’s airducts. However, that’s not historically or currently how most assassinations happen. A typical assassination occurs with either a terrorist or disaffected individual getting close to a public official at an event and using a small firearm. Sometimes explosives are used, but not normally for assassinations.
Take for example the recent assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A man blamed Abe for having ties to the Unification Church, and he used a homemade firearm to kill Abe while he was at a campaign event. Another example is Fernando Villavicencio who was killed during the Ecuadorean general election. As he was leaving a campaign event, an assailant shot Villavicencio three times.
The majority of assassinations are of political leaders, but CEOs and other business executives have also been killed because of their connections to politics. Media businessman Andy Hadjicostis was killed outside his home in 2010 in Cyprus. Alfred Herrhausen who led Deutsche Bank was killed by left-wing terrorists in 1989 with a sophisticated bomb. Georges Besse, a French businessman, was also assassinated by left-wing terrorists in 1986.
Assassinations are not common occurrences, especially in developed countries, but the threat landscape has fundamentally changed security assessments. The digital age has allowed conspiracy theories to thrive, and combined with political polarization that significantly increases the number of possible threats. Take the pandemic and vaccine, for example.
Pharmaceutical CEOs were seen as part of a vast conspiracy, and it is entirely credible that they could be targeted with violence. (The craziest conspiracy during this time was the idea that Bill Gates was using the vaccines to implant microchips into people.) Businesses' intentional and unintentional involvement in politics also increases threats. Target received bomb threats when they removed pro-trans clothing, and it is plausible that if a company is perceived to take a stance on a controversial social issue they could be targeted.
Although incidents are rare, it does not mean the threat is not real. Security professionals and analysts must incorporate such unlikely events into their tracking and planning because of the extensive negative impact they would have if they occurred.
24 April 2024 - Iran a Complex and Perennial Risk
Iran is one of the perennial issues in geopolitics because it sits in a strategically important location between the Middle East and Central Asia. Security professionals need to understand the history, ideology, and goals of the regime to see how their actions can still negatively impact corporations operating in the Middle East.
Iran has a broad history from the ancient Persian empire to its majority Shia population today that deeply impacts its behavior. Recently (geopolitically at least) during the early part of the Cold War, the US and UK supported a coup led by the military in Iran because the prime minister was nationalizing industry and believed to be siding with the Soviets. So, in an act of realpolitik, the US removed Mohammad Mosaddegh from power in 1953.
The Shah (king) re-centralized power in 1954 and was much more amenable to Western security and business interests. Mohammad Reza Shah reintroduced ancient Persian culture establishing the historical figure Cyrus the Great as a symbol of the country. However, he came into conflict with Shia Islamists in the 1960s because of the White Revolution (a series of major economic reforms for modernization). In 1979, the Islamists overthrew the monarchy and imposed a theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini. The removal of an American ally and the illegal occupation of the American embassy during the revolution has led to constant conflict between the two countries since.
The 1979 revolution defines Iran’s domestic and foreign policies as “exporting the revolution” is central to their regional goals. This includes supporting many proxy terrorist groups in the region, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Importantly, Iran deeply hates Israel and its connection with America and the previous Shah, viewing Zionism as colonialism, and religious extremism. To challenge both Israel and America, Iran has taken the approach of multiple avenues for confrontation, e.g., terrorism, cyberattacks, and assassinations. Iran is also pursuing nuclear weapons as a deterrent to any future attempts at regime change.
Sanctions against Iran mean that few corporations operate there and Iran’s geopolitical activity is unlikely to directly impact multinational businesses. However, there are many secondary and tertiary impacts. Iran’s proxies regularly attack US, Israeli, and Western targets. These attacks can disrupt business operations or cause incidental harm. Iran’s impact on the oil market influences inflation (such as oil prices going up on the threat of Israel retaliating for their attack), and their support for the Houthis directly impacts supply chains. Finally, Iran is in a critical alliance with Russia and China, providing drones to the former and oil to the latter. There are also rumors of shared intelligence. Iran is now in the middle of the great power competition that is affecting multinational corporations.
17 April 2024 - The Problem With Drones
Drones are a novel technology that has become democratized, and practically anyone can access and even weaponize them. Their versatility means they can facilitate different types of attacks such as adding explosives or using them for spying and cyberattacks. Their ubiquity and versatility make them a serious threat to corporate security.
How should corporations respond to the challenge of drones?
Archaic laws and complicated regulations make the use of counter-drone technologies very difficult. According to the FCC, extremely effective jamming technology violates the Communications Act of 1934. The law “prohibits the operation, manufacture, importation, marketing, and sale of equipment designed to jam or otherwise interfere with authorized radio communications, such as radar, global positioning system (GPS), and cell phone communications.” Additionally, destroying drones poses litigation risks because falling debris could injure people or might violate FAA or municipal regulations depending on the specific destruction technique. (The seemingly most legal option would be to train hawks to take down drones, but that is probably not the most practical option for most companies.)
That does not mean there is nothing corporations can do.
Using intelligence teams to monitor developments in drone technology can help inform response processes and protocols. Security professionals can also assess other mechanisms that can prevent threat actors from using drones effectively, such as requiring people to close blinds on higher floors to prevent spying.
Importantly, security teams should also seriously consider how to use drones to enhance their capabilities, e.g., using them to monitor protests near the company and expand countersurveillance capabilities. Like other types of emerging technologies, drones create risks but also opportunities. Studying and understanding them will be critical for security professionals to both mitigate the risks and enhance their effectiveness.
3 April 2024 - Does NATO Matter for Companies
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949. It represented a radical shift in geopolitics because the creation of such a large collective security agreement departed significantly from alliance security (e.g., Triple Alliance, Grand Alliance, Holy Alliance), collective defense (e.g., the League of the Three Emperors, Warsaw Pact), and balance of power (e.g., Concert of Europe). These types of agreements focused on nationalistic interests and were often formed to counter another alliance or threat from a great power. Collective security is not directed against a singular threat and encompasses more than defense. According to NATO, its three core tasks are deterrence and defense, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security. This has led to interventions in the Balkans and Libya, countering cyber threat actors, and support to the US during the war in Afghanistan.
Despite its long-standing role in Western security, questions over NATO's effectiveness are rising, especially in the US, due to concerns about the alliance's financial imbalance. Fewer than half of member nations are meeting the target of allocating 2% of their GDP to defense spending. Right-wing populists increasingly oppose the organization because they do not think the US should pay for others' security when those countries will not pay for it themselves. Left-wing activists have also turned against NATO because they believe it is part of “Western imperialism.” Yet most security and foreign policy experts still recognize the utility of NATO for promoting deterrence and neutralizing certain types of threats.
NATO is an important topic for security professionals advising corporations because we should consider how the organization will be impacted by shifts in the domestic politics of member states, developments in international security, and other changes that can strengthen and weaken support for the alliance. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, and it isn’t a coincidence that the member states that meet the spending threshold have significant security concerns about Russia. While US support has strengthened under the Biden administration, Trump may well regain the presidency this year and would very likely raise the same criticisms about NATO as in his previous term.
The evolution of NATO will directly influence government spending in member states (the classic butter vs. guns debate), and impact the defense industrial base, contending with cyber threats, diplomatic issues, and containment of aggressive great powers like Russia and China. International organizations can (though not always) play a critical role in geopolitics and international relations, and NATO is the most important of such organizations for Western powers. How NATO changes and behaves over the coming years will directly and indirectly impact the ability of multinational corporations to operate globally.
27 March 2024 - Africa's Potential
While many African nations face significant problems from conflict, terrorism, political instability, and financial weakness, Africa has the most social and economic potential of any region globally. Much of modernity, will, in fact, rely on resources from Africa, and many countries will have the chance to alter the economic and developmental course of the world.
More than 40% of known global reserves for the key minerals in producing batteries and hydrogen technologies are located in Africa. Take for example lithium, which is critical for producing rechargeable batteries and solar panels. Africa has the potential to supply up to a fifth of the world’s lithium by 2030, and because of current (and likely) prices that will bring a tremendous amount of money to the region. Then there is another important mineral for batteries: cobalt. Zambia and Congo are leading producers of cobalt (more than 60% of global cobalt comes from the Congo alone). Besides lithium and cobalt, the continent also has 40% of the world’s gold, 90% of the world's chromium and platinum, 65% of the world's arable land, and 12% of the world's oil. Importantly, those countries mentioned above have recognized the importance of their natural resources, and they are forcing foreign investors to also invest in employment and infrastructure to improve their economic stability.
The great power competition going on in Africa, though, will determine in what direction many of the countries will go. Places like Niger and Mali experienced coups, and they are now ruled by anti-Western military juntas that have turned towards authoritarians like Russia. On the other hand, countries like Nigeria prefer to work with Western governments and are actively engaging in economic reforms to create long-term financial stability. In addition, other countries in the region are actively working on institution-building and economic development. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has become a critical player, and countries like Kenya and South Africa are actively using their foreign policies to support their values.
The future of Africa will directly impact the future of the world, and the continent holds tremendous potential based on its natural resources and latent capabilities. There are still major issues to resolve, including conflicts in the DRC, Somalia, Nigeria, and Libya, and the backsliding away from democracy in Senegal, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. However, every region faces tremendous problems, and Africa is not unique in this regard. Rather, multinational corporations should focus on where the continent will be ten, twenty, and thirty years from now, and the significant role many African nations will play in geopolitics. Analysts should not be pessimistic or reductive when approaching Africa, and they should recognize the prospective economic, social, and political benefits the continent can bring to global markets.
20 March 2024 - Putin's World
President Vladimir Putin leads Russia in a way that aspires to bring back the historical identity and prestige that he believes his country deserves. The security world and corporations should understand his worldview to grasp what he is trying to accomplish with his foreign policy decisions. When it comes to the basis of his ideology, Orthodox Christianity and arch-traditionalism are the critical components of that framework. Despite coming up in the Soviet Union, Putin remained an Orthodox Christian, and he brought his religious views to the nature of government and the identity of the country. Furthermore, he is deeply informed by Russian history from the past 400 years, including its culture, literature, and institutions. That is why he maintains a national identity that appears archaic to many Westerners.
Geopolitically, Putin has a deeply insecure understanding of Russia’s position because he believes the West wants to keep Russia weak and inferior. According to his understanding, this is happening through NATO’s expansion and left-wing cultural infiltration, which is how his general traditionalist ideology merges his cultural views with his understanding of security. Putin wants to keep a sphere of influence that also acts as a territorial buffer from enemies, which is why he opposed NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. When it comes to culture, though, that equally informs his foreign policy. His justification for invading Ukraine was that the land forms part of Russia, and bringing it back to the motherland is about national identity. This ideological orientation is why Putin directly opposes Western liberalism and leftism which he views as a threat to the national identity. So, he interferes in elections to make people doubt liberal democracy, and he seeks to influence other authoritarians in the Middle East and Africa that the West opposes.
We need to understand how Putin views the world because his behavior is largely predictable within this paradigm. Putin is driven not only by perceived physical threats from NATO but also by cultural and ideological threats to his understanding of Russian national identity. If we apply this intellectual paradigm to Putin’s decision-making, his behavior becomes more easily understandable.
13 March 2024 - Understanding Islam and Politics
Religion is an even more contentious issue than politics, but security professionals and analysts must be knowledgeable and able to objectively discuss both to effectively do their jobs. As Muslims around the world have started participating in Ramadan, a time of fasting and devotion, it is an appropriate period to increase one’s understanding of Islam and how that intersects with socio-political issues. Most Westerners are either divided between Christianity or secularism, and so many misunderstand the fundamental premises of Islam. To start, Islam views Allah (God) as monistic and voluntaristic in contradistinction to Christianity which views God as trinitarian and covenantal. This forms the basis of Muslims’ metaphysical and physical ontology.
Scholar Jean Bethke Elshtain demonstrated in her book Sovereignty that how one views the sovereignty of God leads to how one views the sovereignty of the state. Therefore, the Islamic ontology is fundamental to how politics developed in the Muslim world, including in foreign policy. This is why Islamist parties seek to impose Quranic rules on all of society (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood), but there are more liberal versions as well that just want policy to follow Islamic ethics. When it comes to government and public policy in places like the Middle East, though, there is a complicated interaction between Islam and imperial history. In countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, the majority of Muslims want policy to be influenced and guided by the Quran and Islamic theology. However, in places like Lebanon and Tunisia which were deeply influenced by Western colonialism, Islam has less influence.
Foreign policy by majority Muslim countries or Islamist governments tends towards the Manichean by bifurcating the world into dar al-Islam and dar-al Harb (see Henry Kissinger’s World Order). Critical to the concept is the ummah, the global Muslim community, because Islamic leaders are supposed to protect and defend the community. Of course, Islam is not the only religion to take on a universalist approach, but analysts need to understand this paradigm to forecast how these governments will behave. Altogether, analysts should observe the intersection of Islamic theology, public policy, and geopolitics because it is critical to understand international relations and regional issues in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.
28 February 2024 - The Geopolitics of Semiconductors
Semiconductors (also called chips) have become the quintessential element to the economy of the 21st century because they are in practically every product available. Laptops, cars, refrigerators, smart lightbulbs… even scent diffusers can have them now.
Corporations are therefore exceptionally sensitive to problems with semiconductors, and geopolitics is of particular concern. The supply chain, development, and production of chips are all sensitive to shifts in the geopolitical landscape, and sometimes these impacts can be tertiary.
Take for example the war in Ukraine that has disrupted the neon gas supply used in less advanced chips. While corporations were able to rely on rare-gas reserves, recycle previously used gas, and change technology to use less neon gas, there is still a direct threat over the medium-to-long term depending on which chips are needed.
Although in advanced chip manufacturing, EUV (extreme ultraviolet lithography) does not require neon gas, there are tens of thousands of parts to these lasers that could be disrupted. If that were to happen, then advanced chips could not be produced.
Then there is the direct competition happening right now between the US and China. China remains a few years behind advanced chips, and US sanctions have led the major companies to stop working with the CCP in several areas.
This has led China to try and create domestic companies to do this, and it is contributing to the balkanization of technology between east and west. In addition, Chinese threat actors have engaged in consistent espionage against Western corporations to steal semiconductor designs. China’s threats against Taiwan and the South China Sea would also absolutely devastate the production of semiconductors and its supply chain. Each part of the creation and use of semiconductors is threatened by geopolitics, particularly great power competition.
Geopolitics may threaten corporations when it comes to semiconductors, but we must also consider the positives of how chips will impact the security industry. Advanced semiconductors will improve generative AI and encourage the physical-cyber convergence that will make the collection and analysis of intelligence easier. Security professionals need to understand the positives and negatives, threats and risks, costs and benefits of semiconductors, and what they mean for corporations and security.
21 February 2024 - Ukraine: A New Model for War
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine provides insight into the evolving approach to warfare as the use of drones and cyberattacks is producing a new model of conflict. While the nature of war never changes in Clausewitzian terms, this is the first time that the security world has seen a real cyberwar. Previously, there were extensive cyber espionage campaigns, targeted cyberattacks, and zero-day markets, but this is the only real case study analysts and security professionals have where two governments organized deliberate cyberattacks against each other.
Each side has gone after critical infrastructure and government institutions, using defense agencies and patriotic hackers to support regular military operations. This has included the energy grid and communications companies, and such attacks were also done by essentially “cyber militias.” The main lesson from this cyberwar appears to be that cyberattacks have been primarily used as an auxiliary force to supplement regular forces.
The other major lesson from this cyberwar is that multinational technology companies have actively participated in the conflict, ranging from Microsoft to Meta to Google. For example, Microsoft has focused on providing threat intelligence to relevant parties and even targeting the infrastructure of Russian APTs. Companies like Meta and Google took down disinformation on their platforms. The future of warfare is highly likely to resemble the Russia-Ukraine war in that multinational corporations will actively participate. Before this was generally the “military-industrial complex” in that corporations provided weapons and support, but this war has shown how technology companies will directly engage in the effort through multiple avenues.
Importantly, the conflict is ongoing, and it will take future research and analysis to see how the cyberwar impacted the conflict more broadly, whether it was strategically and/or tactically useful, or if it made any difference at all. However, there is no doubt that cyberwar is now here and will be part of interstate conflict from now on.
7 February 2024 - Shifting Numbers, Shifting Power: China's Population Crisis
While China’s economy is currently facing significant problems, there is an underlying issue that will fundamentally shape the country over the next few decades. Essentially, China’s population is in decline because of long-term structural issues (i.e., the one-child policy), and recent social changes (e.g., the COVID pandemic). In 2022, China’s population declined by 850,000, and in 2023 it declined by a further 2.08 million people. China has a population of 1.4 billion, so the declines are minor in comparison, but that does not mean long-term problems will not arise.
31 January 2024 - NATO Warns of Increasing Risk of War with Russia
Senior NATO officials are warning that the risk of war with Russia is increasing https://lnkd.in/dCdvn2EJ and some are claiming we are in a pre-war state https://lnkd.in/d_M3pEb4
In this week's short article, we examine whether we are, in fact, already at war.
Thomas Hobbes, political theorist and author of Leviathan, infamously described the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and a “war of all against all.” While Hobbes offered a pessimistic view of the world, scholars of international relations have partially accepted his thesis by describing the world order as anarchic, which forces all states to compete with each other to maintain their security.
This competition happens over resources, territory, and influence, and quite often includes the use of force to achieve political aims. While people tend to think of the use of force, i.e., war, as an exception to normal interstate behavior, the fact is that the Hobbesian world means war is a constant of the system rather than an aberration. The false notion that war is an aberration is that people typically conceive of it as only existing on battlefields and happening between organized armies. However, that is not all that war is.
Terrorism, disinformation, cyberattacks, drone strikes, assassinations, espionage, covert operations, propaganda, proxy wars, insurgency, blockades. All of these are part of the constant struggle for security and protection of national interests by various countries, and the constant use of them demonstrates a permanent state of conflict in the world order. What analysts and security professionals should recognize when discussing and assessing geopolitics is that great and regional powers are continually at war with each other whether they are organized battalions on designated battlefields or cyberattacks on critical infrastructure as punitive reprisals.
Contemporary examples of this constant state of war include Russia’s cyberattacks, disinformation, and assassinations in the West; China’s espionage against America, territorial fights with India, and global information operations; the United States drone strikes against terrorists, cyberattacks on Iranian WMDs, and backing Ukraine against Russia.
The world order exists in a state of war, and we should understand that it is the norm rather than the exception. This is crucial for corporations because it aids in forecasting, scenario planning, and developing accurate triggers and indicators. Recognizing that we operate in a world where conflict is a persistent element allows businesses to prepare and adapt more effectively.
17 January 2024 - Attacks on Shipping in the Red Sea
The escalating situation in the Red Sea, primarily driven by Houthi attacks on shipping, is adversely affecting global shipping routes and supply chains. The Houthis, an Iranian-backed militant group in Yemen, have intensified their assaults on vessels, in support of Hamas against Israel. This has prompted limited retaliatory strikes from the United States and the United Kingdom, aimed at curbing Houthi activities. However, given the Houthis' resilience and their recent targeting of American-owned ships, an escalation in US and UK military responses seems increasingly probable. The Houthis have explicitly stated that they now view American and British ships as legitimate targets and have vowed to retaliate against any further operations by the US and UK.
The impact of these tensions on maritime traffic is significant. According to Bloomberg, following US and UK strikes on January 12, the volume of vessels passing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has dropped to less than half the usual number. This reduction in maritime traffic, coupled with decisions by major oil companies like Shell and BP to suspend oil transportation through the strait, has led to a 3% increase in Brent oil prices. The disruption is also affecting consumer goods, as evidenced by companies like Maersk suspending their shipping operations in the region.
The future trajectory of global shipping and pricing will be heavily influenced by the nature and intensity of US and UK responses. While a ground intervention by these nations seems highly unlikely, an expansion of airstrikes targeting Houthi infrastructure is anticipated. If these strikes effectively weaken Houthi capabilities, normal shipping activities might resume in the medium term. Additionally, as Israel alters its approach in Gaza and withdraws troops, a decrease in Houthi attacks may follow.
10 January 2024 - Taiwan Elections
On January 13, Taiwan will hold its presidential and legislative elections, and the outcome will have significant effects on Asian geopolitical issues. While the election is highly likely to pass off peacefully, the CCP is currently attempting massive influence and cyber operations to impact the outcome and make it more favorable. Current polls indicate that the DPP’s (Democratic Progressive Party) presidential candidate Lai Ching-te (William Lai) is ahead narrowly, but the main opposition party Kuomintang (KMT), and their presidential candidate Huo Yu-ih are not out of the running. The most likely scenario is that the DPP will win the presidency and a narrow majority in the legislature, but there is also a moderate likelihood of KMT taking the presidency but not the legislature. KMT is much more pro-Beijing than the DPP and the preferred candidate of the CCP.
China is generally unlikely to trigger a crisis through a blockade or invasion in the short term, but the choices by Taipei will likely shift how China engages the island. China’s covert influence operations are intended to undermine the public’s trust in democracy, and there is a high likelihood of cyberattacks by “patriotic hackers” in the days leading up to the election. Targets are more likely to be government or political institutions, but there will be incidental risks to foreign businesses. Should the DPP win, China is most likely to respond with military exercises to demonstrate strength that will likely disrupt some travel in the region, and there is a moderate likelihood of implementing tariffs (though these would be highly limited and just meant to show displeasure). Importantly, the election is only the first step, and there will be risks to Western governments depending on the kind of congratulations and travel by politicians. In the short term, not much is likely to change, but there remain higher risks for the medium term.
2 January 2024 - The Return of Inspire Magazine
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have brought back Inspire magazine as a vlog, and they are calling it a form of "Open Source Jihad." The new video titled "What America and the West do not Expect" calls for attacks on the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union for their support of Israel in the war on Gaza. The video also calls for attacks on civil aviation and high-profile individuals, including Bill Gates and Elon Musk.
Although the video is new, the threats made are very similar to the 13th Edition of Inspire magazine released in 2015, which called for almost identical attacks and provided the same detailed instructions on how to build improvised explosive devices that can bypass airport security.
The content is primarily aimed at encouraging lone-wolf-type attacks (which has always been the purpose of Inspire), and AQAP is not known to have any organized capability in the United States. Their general capabilities have also been severely degraded over the past eight years, and so they are also unlikely to be able to carry out coordinated complex attacks in Europe as well. However, the Charlie Hebdo attackers in Paris in 2015 were linked to AQAP, and this type of attack by Jihadist-inspired domestic extremists cannot be ruled out completely.
The terrorism risk in the U.S. and Europe is elevated because of the war in Gaza, and this may further motivate Jihadist sympathizers to carry out attacks. AQAP has "inspired" lone wolf/self-radicalized attacks in the U.S. and Europe previously, and the primary risk will be low-capability attacks using firearms, bladed weapons, and vehicles targeting crowded public places.
13 December 2023 - Top 7 Corporate Risks during the US Election Cycle
As the United States approaches the 2024 election cycle, set to begin with the primaries early next year, corporations face significant risks, both direct and indirect. Insight Forward has identified the top seven risks that corporations may encounter during this election period.
© Copyright. All rights reserved.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.