The Geopolitics of...
“The Geopolitics Of…” is Insight Forward’s strategic blog series decoding how political, economic, and social power plays influence industries, markets, and nations. Whether you’re guiding corporate strategy or managing risk exposure, this blog offers sharp insight, clear perspective, and informed foresight.
Want more? Sign up for our newsletter to receive updates directly to your inbox.
The banking and financial sector operates within a highly interconnected global economy, making it particularly vulnerable to geopolitical shifts. Political instability, trade disputes, sanctions, military conflicts, and regulatory changes can all have profound implications on financial markets, cross-border capital flows, and investment strategies. In recent years, geopolitical risk has become a dominant concern for financial institutions, often surpassing traditional economic risks such as inflation or monetary policy shifts. Banks, central financial regulators, and private investment firms must now adapt to an increasingly unpredictable geopolitical landscape to safeguard financial stability and maintain growth.
Most importantly, financial markets are highly sensitive to geopolitical developments, often reacting with sharp fluctuations in asset prices, currency valuations, and investor confidence. Political instability, trade disputes, sanctions, and military conflicts can create volatility across global exchanges, leading to sudden shifts in capital flows and investment priorities. Historically, markets tend to depreciate during periods of heightened global uncertainty, as investors seek to de-risk their portfolios and move capital into safe-haven assets such as gold, U.S. Treasury bonds, or the Swiss franc. For example, during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global markets saw a surge in commodity prices, an energy crisis in Europe, and a sharp depreciation of the Russian ruble, while investors flocked to U.S. bonds and the dollar for stability. Another example comes from U.S.-China trade tensions that have caused significant volatility in technology and semiconductor stocks, as uncertainty over tariffs, export controls, and supply chain disruptions affects long-term growth prospects.
Some investors have also shifted toward geopolitical hedging strategies, seeking assets that tend to perform well during crises. This includes investments in defense stocks, cybersecurity firms, and commodities like oil, natural gas, and rare earth minerals, which benefit from geopolitical tensions. For example, companies in the defense sector, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, often see increased stock valuations during periods of rising global conflict, as governments ramp up military spending. Relatedly, cybersecurity firms experience surges in demand during periods of heightened cyber warfare, as businesses and governments invest in protecting critical infrastructure and sensitive data. Additionally, investors often turn to energy commodities like oil and gas, which tend to spike in price when supply chains are threatened by geopolitical instability—as seen during the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s, the Gulf War, and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
There are three particular areas that have shown a deep connection between geopolitics and banking that exemplify this issue more broadly: cross-border lending, regulatory changes, and inflationary changes.
Cross-Border Lending
One of the most direct ways geopolitics affects banking is through cross-border lending. Political tensions, trade conflicts, and economic sanctions can lead to capital flight, restricted lending, and increased risk aversion among international banks. According to research from the Federal Reserve, heightened geopolitical risks often result in decreased cross-border bank lending, particularly to emerging markets and politically unstable regions. This trend can stifle economic growth in developing nations that rely on foreign capital to fund infrastructure, business expansion, and trade. Furthermore, banks operating in regions impacted by sanctions or trade barriers must navigate complex compliance regulations. Western financial institutions, for instance, have had to reduce their exposure to Russia following economic sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, heightened tensions between the U.S. and China have led global banks to reassess their lending strategies to Chinese firms, particularly in sectors linked to technology and defense. The growing trend of “de-risking” financial relationships with politically volatile regions is likely to continue, leading to further fragmentation in global banking networks.
Regulatory Changes
In response to geopolitical instability, regulatory bodies often tighten financial supervision and enforce new compliance measures to mitigate systemic risks. The European Central Bank (ECB), for example, has emphasized the need for banks to enhance resilience against external shocks. This includes conducting stress tests, ensuring sufficient capital buffers, and improving cybersecurity protections against state-sponsored threats. Regulatory frameworks in the U.S. and Europe have also increasingly focused on financial transparency and anti-money laundering measures, particularly concerning Russian, Chinese, and Middle Eastern financial activities.
Additionally, sovereign wealth funds and central banks are recalibrating their investment strategies to reduce exposure to politically unstable assets. For example, European regulators are pushing banks to reduce reliance on Chinese markets, while some U.S. investment funds have begun diversifying away from industries linked to authoritarian states. These regulatory shifts create both challenges and opportunities for financial institutions, forcing them to redefine risk management strategies while also opening up potential for new markets and alternative investments.
Inflationary Pressures
Geopolitical tensions also directly impact inflation and monetary policy, which in turn affect banking and financial stability. According to a World Economic Forum report, central banks are increasingly viewing geopolitical risks as a primary driver of inflation, surpassing concerns over interest rates or domestic fiscal policy. Disruptions to global supply chains, particularly in energy, agriculture, and technology, can create supply-side inflation that central banks struggle to control. Conflict and tension in Eurasia have forced the European Central Bank (ECB) and the U.S. Federal Reserve to adjust interest rates to manage inflationary pressures. Financial institutions must now account for geopolitical inflation shocks when formulating lending policies, risk assessments, and investment strategies.
Banking in a Politically Volatile World
As geopolitical risks continue to shape financial markets, banks, institutional investors, and multinational corporations must integrate geopolitical intelligence into their risk management frameworks. This means tracking geopolitical flashpoints, evaluating how new trade policies or sanctions may impact certain industries, and preparing for currency fluctuations that could affect global investments. The intersection of geopolitics and finance will only become more pronounced, requiring such institutions to not only monitor the problem but adapt rapidly to an increasingly complex global environment. For example, private banking institutions, such as Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, have advised clients to adopt diversification strategies to mitigate the risks posed by global political instability. This includes spreading investments across different asset classes, geographic regions, and industries that are less vulnerable to political shocks. Those institutions that can anticipate geopolitical risks and develop robust response mechanisms will be best positioned to navigate the uncertainty and maintain stability in the face of global turbulence.
Long the bastion of political stability, Western Europe now faces a complex and precarious geopolitical position, caught between great power competition, the resurgence of nationalism, and prolonged economic stagnation that limits its ability to act as a major global player. The United States' strategic pivot toward Asia and China’s expanding economic influence have left Europe increasingly vulnerable, forcing it to navigate a geopolitical landscape in which it is often a secondary player rather than a key decision-maker. Meanwhile, Russia’s war in Ukraine has demonstrated Europe’s continued reliance on American security guarantees, while economic stagnation has weakened Europe’s ability to invest in defense, technology, and strategic industries. With an aging population, sluggish economic growth, and a divided political landscape, Western Europe risks being overtaken by global shifts that it struggles to control.
A Pawn in Great Power Politics
One of Western Europe’s greatest geopolitical challenges is its position between the United States and China, both of whom view the region as a battleground for economic and technological dominance. The United States has pushed Europe to decouple from China in key industries, such as semiconductors and telecommunications, while China has sought to expand its economic leverage in the region through infrastructure investments and trade deals. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has seen Chinese state-owned enterprises invest heavily in European ports, such as the Port of Piraeus in Greece and Hamburg’s container terminal in Germany, increasing Chinese influence over European trade. Additionally, China’s stake in European energy, transportation, and telecommunications networks, such as Huawei’s role in 5G infrastructure, has caused deep divisions within the EU. While countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and France have become more skeptical of Chinese investment, southern and eastern European nations—such as Hungary, Italy, and Greece—continue to welcome Chinese capital, creating a fragmented EU approach to China.
At the same time, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced Europe to rethink its security posture, with NATO becoming more vital than ever. Despite European ambitions for “strategic autonomy,” the war has reinforced Europe’s dependence on the U.S. military umbrella, with Washington providing the bulk of military aid to Ukraine, while France and Germany have struggled to meet their defense commitments. Germany’s much-touted "Zeitenwende" (historic turning point) in defense policy, which promised €100 billion in military investment, has been slow to materialize due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and economic constraints. The result is that Europe remains militarily weak, unable to act decisively in geopolitical conflicts without American backing.
Rising Nationalism
Adding to these external pressures, rising nationalism and political fragmentation within Europe are weakening its ability to respond collectively to global challenges. The European Union, once seen as a model of political unity and economic strength, is now deeply divided on issues such as migration, energy security, and economic governance. Right-wing populist movements have gained traction in several areas including France (Marine Le Pen’s National Rally), Germany (Alternative for Germany, AfD), the Netherlands (Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom), and Italy (Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy), reshaping political landscapes and challenging the traditional pro-European consensus. These movements have capitalized on public anger over immigration, economic inequality, and a perceived loss of national sovereignty to EU bureaucrats in Brussels.
One of the most contentious issues driving nationalism in Europe is immigration. The European migration crisis, exacerbated by conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and sub-Saharan Africa, has overwhelmed asylum systems, leading to political backlash in France, Italy, and Germany. The 2023 Lampedusa crisis, where thousands of migrants arrived on Italy’s shores in a single week, reignited debates over Europe’s ability to control its borders. While the EU has tried to implement a common asylum and migration policy, nationalist governments in Hungary, Poland, and increasingly even in France and Italy have resisted accepting migrants, deepening divisions among member states.
This political fragmentation has also impacted Europe’s response to external threats, such as sanctions on Russia and economic policy toward China. The EU struggles to present a united front, with countries like Germany initially hesitant to cut off Russian energy imports due to its heavy reliance on Nord Stream gas pipelines, while others, such as Poland and the Baltic states, have pushed for a tougher stance against Moscow. Similarly, when it comes to China, countries like France and Germany have sought to maintain economic ties, while others, such as Lithuania, have openly challenged Beijing by deepening relations with Taiwan, sparking Chinese retaliatory measures. This internal disunity prevents Western Europe from acting as a strong geopolitical force and makes it vulnerable to external influence.
Economic Stagnation
Perhaps the most significant limitation on Western Europe’s geopolitical ambitions is its economic stagnation. Many European economies suffer from low growth, high debt burdens, and declining productivity, a phenomenon known as secular stagnation—a prolonged period of weak economic expansion with minimal technological innovation and aging demographics. Unlike the United States, which has maintained higher GDP growth through innovation and demographic advantages, Europe’s workforce is shrinking, and its industries are struggling to compete in the tech-driven global economy.
Germany, once the engine of Europe’s economy, has slipped into recession, with its manufacturing sector in decline due to high energy costs and reduced demand for exports. The European Central Bank’s tight monetary policies, implemented to combat inflation caused by the energy crisis, have further slowed growth. Meanwhile, countries like France and Italy continue to grapple with high government debt, limiting their ability to invest in defense, infrastructure, and strategic industries. The EU has ambitious plans for green energy investment, but the reality is that Europe remains dependent on Chinese solar panels and American liquefied natural gas (LNG), making it vulnerable to external economic pressures.
The contrast with other global powers is striking. While the U.S. has successfully leveraged AI, technology, and energy production to drive economic growth, and China continues to dominate global supply chains, Europe is increasingly falling behind. Its inability to compete in key strategic industries such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and defense technology further weakens its ability to influence global geopolitics.
A Europe in Decline or Reinvention?
As Western Europe grapples with geopolitical pressures, internal divisions, and economic stagnation, it faces a critical choice: either adapt to a multipolar world by strengthening its economic and security posture, or risk becoming a passive player in global affairs, shaped by external forces rather than shaping them. To regain its geopolitical relevance, Europe must increase defense spending, reduce dependence on external energy sources, invest in technological innovation, and reform its political structures to enhance unity in foreign policy decisions. Without these changes, Europe will continue to be vulnerable to great power rivalries, weakened by internal nationalism, and constrained by an economic model that no longer supports global leadership. Ultimately, the fate of Western Europe as a geopolitical power will depend on its ability to overcome its internal contradictions. If it fails to do so, it will be relegated to a secondary role in world politics, dependent on the decisions of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow rather than setting the agenda itself.
North America’s geopolitical landscape is shaped by a complex web of economic interdependence, security concerns, and political tensions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. While the three countries are bound together by trade agreements such as USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), they face growing disputes over immigration, drug trafficking, and economic competition. Additionally, instability in smaller regional nations, such as Haiti and Guatemala, exacerbates these issues, spilling over into North America’s security and migration crises. Further complicating matters, the Panama Canal—critical to global trade—is facing two distinct but equally severe challenges: declining water levels and a geopolitical contest between the U.S. and China. Together, these factors present a North America that is increasingly vulnerable to external pressures, internal dysfunction, and strategic threats from global rivals.
US-Mexico Border
One of the most contentious issues in North American geopolitics is immigration and border security, particularly between the United States and Mexico. The U.S.-Mexico border has become a flashpoint for political battles, humanitarian crises, and criminal activity, with record numbers of migrants attempting to cross into the United States in recent years (though that number has sharply dropped). Many of these migrants are not only from Mexico but also from Central American nations like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, as well as distant countries such as Venezuela, Haiti, and even China.
The U.S. and Mexico are deeply divided on how to handle migration flows. The Mexican government has taken a more cooperative stance in certain periods, deploying its National Guard to curb migrant caravans under pressure from Washington. However, Mexico’s ability and willingness to act as a buffer for U.S. immigration concerns remain inconsistent, leading to periodic tensions between both governments. Additionally, migration issues are tied to organized crime and cartel activity, as human smuggling operations become more sophisticated and lucrative for criminal organizations.
The drug trade further strains U.S.-Mexico relations, particularly with the rise of fentanyl smuggling. Mexican cartels, working with Chinese suppliers, have flooded the U.S. market with fentanyl, contributing to America’s opioid crisis. Despite U.S. demands for stronger Mexican enforcement against cartels, Mexico has resisted large-scale crackdowns, fearing both internal instability and the loss of cartel-controlled regions. The Mexican government has also accused the U.S. of failing to control gun trafficking, which fuels cartel violence. The mutual blame game underscores the ongoing dysfunction in bilateral security cooperation.
U.S. and Canada Tensions
While the U.S. and Canada share one of the world’s largest trading relationships, tensions have grown over protectionist policies, energy disputes, and differing geopolitical priorities. The USMCA trade deal helped preserve North America’s economic bloc after the renegotiation of NAFTA, but Canada and the U.S. still face disagreements over key industries. The U.S. has criticized Canada’s agriculture protections and digital market regulations, while Canada has expressed concerns about American subsidies for electric vehicles and Buy American policies that disadvantage Canadian businesses. Energy remains another sticking point, particularly regarding oil pipelines and climate policy. The cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline under the Biden administration frustrated Canada’s energy sector, and disputes over carbon taxes and environmental regulations have created more tension between Canadian provinces and Washington.
Politically, Canada has also positioned itself differently from the U.S. on global affairs, particularly regarding China. While Washington has sought to isolate China economically and strategically, Canada has taken a more measured approach, attempting to balance trade ties with Beijing while navigating pressure from the U.S. to align more closely with its anti-China stance. This dynamic has put Ottawa in a difficult position, caught between economic pragmatism and strategic alliances.
The Panama Canal Crisis
The Panama Canal, a critical chokepoint for global trade and North American supply chains, is facing two simultaneous crises: historically low water levels and geopolitical maneuvering between the U.S. and China. The ongoing drought in Panama has severely limited the number of ships passing through the canal, forcing many vessels to take alternative routes or carry reduced cargo loads. This has led to supply chain disruptions, rising costs, and delays in goods moving between Asia and North America. The situation highlights how climate change-driven environmental challenges can have direct economic consequences on North American trade.
Beyond environmental concerns, the U.S. and China are locked in a strategic battle over control of the canal’s infrastructure. China has heavily invested in Latin America, including in Panamanian ports and logistics hubs, raising concerns in Washington that Beijing is expanding its influence over critical global shipping lanes. The U.S. sees this as a direct challenge to its dominance in the Western Hemisphere, prompting increased diplomatic and economic engagement with Panama to counterbalance China’s growing footprint. That is why the U.S. pressured Panama into abandoning Belt and Road investments, though the competition for this strategically important region is far from over.
Regional Instability
Beyond the U.S.-Canada-Mexico dynamic, smaller nations in the region—particularly Haiti and Guatemala—are contributing to broader instability that affects North America’s security and migration policies. Haiti is currently experiencing one of its worst crises in decades, with violent gangs controlling much of the capital, Port-au-Prince, and the country teetering on the brink of state collapse. The failure of the Haitian government has triggered waves of migration, with thousands attempting to reach the U.S. through Mexico. The Biden administration failed to develop a cohesive policy on Haiti, and the government rejected intervention or support for an international peacekeeping mission to stabilize the situation. However, with Washington focused on Ukraine and Indo-Pacific security, Haiti still remains a low priority, despite its direct impact on regional migration and security.
Guatemala, a key transit country for migration, also faces political instability following a contested election and allegations of corruption within its judiciary and government. The U.S. has historically used aid and diplomatic pressure to stabilize Central America, but recent cuts in funding and a shift in focus toward great power competition with China and Russia have reduced Washington’s influence in the region. Without stronger governance in countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, migration pressures on the U.S.-Mexico border will continue to grow.
Conclusion
North America is facing an increasingly complex and fragile geopolitical environment, shaped by internal disputes, regional instability, and external global pressures. U.S.-Mexico tensions over immigration and drug trafficking, U.S.-Canada economic disagreements, and the crisis in the Panama Canal all contribute to a region in flux, struggling to manage both domestic and international challenges. Meanwhile, regional instability in the Caribbean and Central America is spilling over into North America’s migration crisis, exacerbating tensions between Washington, Mexico City, and Ottawa.
The ability of North American nations to work together on trade, security, and strategic infrastructure will determine whether the region remains a global economic powerhouse or continues to face growing instability and external pressures. These nations are failing to develop coordinated policies, meaning the region risks becoming more vulnerable to geopolitical competitors like China and falling into cycles of political dysfunction and economic fragmentation.
Geopolitics has profound consequences for global healthcare that corporations need to take more seriously in the increasingly volatile world of today. From disrupting supply chains and limiting access to essential medicines to undermining global health governance and exacerbating crises in conflict zones, geopolitical instability threatens the efficiency, accessibility, and equity of healthcare worldwide. Understanding these negative impacts is critical for policymakers, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies as they navigate an increasingly uncertain global landscape.
Healthcare Supply Chains
The modern healthcare system is deeply reliant on a globalized supply chain, particularly for pharmaceuticals and medical devices. However, geopolitical conflicts, trade disputes, and national security concerns frequently lead to disruptions in the availability of critical medical supplies.
One of the most significant threats comes in the form of export bans and trade restrictions. Governments often impose these measures during crises, prioritizing domestic supply over global needs. Recent examples include export bans by India, France, Poland, Greece, Norway, Spain, and Bulgaria on essential drugs and medical supplies. These restrictions exacerbate shortages worldwide, leaving vulnerable populations without access to life-saving treatments. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the fragility of healthcare supply chains, as countries rushed to secure personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccines, and pharmaceuticals, often at the expense of international cooperation.
Moreover, reliance on a small number of countries for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) creates additional vulnerabilities. For example, China and India produce a significant portion of the world's APIs, making other nations highly dependent on their continued production and export. Diplomatic tensions, such as the ongoing U.S.-China trade war, heighten the risk of supply chain disruptions. If diplomatic relations deteriorate further or export restrictions are imposed, drug availability could be severely impacted, leading to cascading effects on global healthcare systems.
To mitigate these risks, pharmaceutical companies are exploring ways to diversify their supply chains, but shifting production to new locations is costly and time-consuming. Some companies have turned to stochastic programming models—advanced tools that simulate geopolitical risks and optimize decision-making in uncertain conditions—to strengthen supply chain resilience. However, these solutions require substantial investment and international coordination, which is often hindered by political rivalries.
Global Health Governance
International health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), play a critical role in coordinating responses to global health crises. However, geopolitical tensions often undermine these efforts, weakening the ability of international institutions to function effectively. For example, in 2020 and 2025, the Trump administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO, citing concerns over its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its alleged favoritism toward China. The decision highlighted the extent to which geopolitics can disrupt global health coordination. The politicization of global health governance can hinder cooperation, slow response times, and create divisions among nations, ultimately putting millions of lives at risk.
Geopolitical rivalries also influence funding priorities and resource allocation in global health. Countries with significant influence in international organizations often push for initiatives that align with their political interests, sometimes sidelining critical health issues that lack political appeal. For instance, geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China has led to competing narratives and strategies in global health aid, with each nation seeking to expand its influence rather than prioritizing the most urgent healthcare needs.
Healthcare Disruptions in Conflict Zones
Geopolitical conflicts frequently lead to humanitarian crises, with healthcare systems among the first casualties. War-torn regions experience devastating disruptions in medical infrastructure, personnel shortages, and increased disease outbreaks. One of the most pressing concerns is the collapse of vaccination programs in conflict zones. Wars interrupt routine immunizations for children, leading to the resurgence of preventable diseases such as measles and polio. For example, the reemergence of polio in Pakistan and Afghanistan is directly linked to ongoing conflict and the targeting of vaccination workers by militant groups. Without stable governance and security, efforts to control disease outbreaks are severely hampered.
Another significant issue is the destruction of medical infrastructure. Hospitals and clinics are frequently targeted in conflicts, either deliberately or as collateral damage. The war in Yemen offers a tragic example: the prolonged conflict has decimated the healthcare system, leading to one of the world’s worst cholera outbreaks. More than 2 million suspected cases were reported between 2016 and 2022, a direct consequence of the destruction of water and sanitation infrastructure. Furthermore, conflict zones often experience severe medical personnel shortages. Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers are either killed, forced to flee, or prevented from working due to safety concerns. The loss of trained professionals further exacerbates the crisis, leaving populations without access to even the most basic medical care.
The Pharmaceutical Industry
Geopolitical tensions also shape the pharmaceutical industry, particularly through intellectual property laws and international trade agreements. These factors determine drug development, pricing, and accessibility, often creating barriers to affordable healthcare. Intellectual property rights play a crucial role in pharmaceutical innovation, but they are also a source of geopolitical contention. Trade agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) establish global patent protections, but debates over extending these protections often pit developed nations against developing ones. Wealthier countries, where most pharmaceutical companies are based, advocate for stronger patent protections to incentivize research and development. Meanwhile, developing nations argue that extended patents create monopolies, driving up drug prices and limiting access to affordable medicines.
This geopolitical tension was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when countries debated waiving patent protections for vaccines to expand global production. While some nations, including India and South Africa, pushed for a temporary waiver, pharmaceutial companies and several Western governments resisted the proposal, prioritizing corporate interests over equitable vaccine distribution.
Conclusion
Geopolitics exerts a profound and often detrimental impact on the healthcare industry, affecting everything from supply chains and access to medicines to global health governance and the resilience of healthcare systems in conflict zones. Export bans, trade restrictions, sanctions, and geopolitical rivalries disrupt healthcare delivery, while conflicts and economic instability further exacerbate health crises. Meanwhile, geopolitical maneuvering within global health organizations often prioritizes national interests over urgent medical needs, potential disrupting the global market.
As global political tensions continue to rise, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and pharmaceutical companies must prepare for further disruptions. Strengthening supply chain resilience and understanding the changing nature of international cooperation will be essential in mitigating the negative effects of geopolitics on global health.
Trump’s Foreign Policy and Corporate Decision Making
How it will impact Corporate Decision Making
President Donald Trump's foreign policy marks a departure from the neoliberal focus on democracy promotion, globalization, and economic interdependence that has defined U.S. strategy since the Cold War. Instead, it signals a return to a 19th-century realist framework, prioritizing nationalism, unilateralism, and narrowly defined national interests. This approach emphasizes leveraging U.S. power to extract bilateral advantages rather than fostering multilateral cooperation, often sidelining values like democracy and human rights in favor of pragmatic deals. Industrial policy, including the use of tariffs and protectionist measures, underscores this shift, reflecting a desire to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains. By embracing an essentially transactional worldview, Trump positions the United States as a self-interested actor in an increasingly fragmented global order, where power politics and economic self-sufficiency take precedence over the liberal ideals of interconnectedness and shared global governance.
Like many realists before him, Trump’s transactional and opportunistic leadership style prioritizes self-interest and perceives international relations as zero-sum games, meaning there are winners and losers in each scenario rather than shared benefits. Trump's approach will likely disrupt alliances, values, and treaties, pushing the U.S. further into a transactional global order. While allies like Europe and NATO recalibrate their strategies to accommodate Trump’s demands, emerging markets will likely see opportunities in his preference for bilateral deals and reduced emphasis on shared values like democracy and human rights. This is due to the growing global disillusionment with the post-WWII rules-based order that many in the Global South see as hypocritical at best. Smaller nations, however, could face significant challenges in a transactional system. Thos without important economic leverage, such as critical minerals, will find it difficult to manage the great power competition based on national interests.
A prime example of this is Trump’s views on U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The United States has failed to build strong partnerships with its neighbors, leaving fewer places where Washington’s influence is unchallenged. This approach departs from decades of U.S. passivity, during which the region was neglected due to diversions in the Middle East and South Asia. Trump's early appointments and strategic pronouncements, such as his interest in Greenland, the Panama Canal, and U.S.-Mexico border security, signal a renewed emphasis on countering growing threats from adversaries like China, Russia, and transnational cartels.
China's expanding influence in Latin America, through trade, Belt and Road Initiative participation, and strategic investments, poses significant economic and security challenges, as do Russian military activities, Iranian proxies, and the flow of Chinese fentanyl across the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump's strategy seeks to reassert U.S. dominance in the hemisphere by addressing these threats, reviving historical policies of hemispheric defense, and emphasizing secure regional economic integration in response to great-power competition. While a deviation from American foreign policy principles of the last several decades, his transactional approach is likely to be more welcomed in the Western Hemisphere.
Importantly, Trump’s foreign policy approach could offer several potential benefits that corporations will want to understand. These include:
- Enhanced Domestic Economic Growth: Prioritizing industrial policy and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains could stimulate domestic manufacturing, protect key industries, and create jobs in sectors critical to national security, such as technology, defense, and energy. However, this also has the potential to increase production and manufacturing costs. Corporations will have to monitor the specifics of the policy choices closely.
- Strategic Leverage in Negotiations: By emphasizing bilateral deals, Trump’s approach could the U.S. to tailor agreements to its specific interests, potentially securing better terms in trade or investment agreements with individual countries.
- Focus on Practical Interests: Moving away from abstract commitments to democracy promotion and human rights can lead to more pragmatic, interest-driven foreign policy decisions, focusing resources on areas of direct economic value to the U.S.
- Appeal to Emerging Markets: In some cases, Trump’s transactional style may resonate with countries in the Global South that prefer pragmatic partnerships over being subjected to Western norms or conditions tied to democracy or human rights. This could increase market access for American companies.
- Greater Policy Flexibility: Eschewing rigid neoliberal doctrines grants the U.S. more room to adapt to a multipolar world, where rising powers like China and India increasingly challenge the traditional liberal order. Competition with great powers also means economic competition between companies. Places like Central Africa have rejected Western companies for their lack of pragmatism, which was typically hamstrung by U.S. policies.
Corporations must adapt to the resurgence of this transactional 19th-century-style foreign policy and diplomacy, where nationalism, unilateralism, and realpolitik dominate global interactions. In this environment, states prioritize national interests over multilateral agreements, and the rules-based order gives way to a transactional, power-driven approach. As a result, corporations can no longer rely solely on stable global frameworks or predictable trade agreements to guide their operations. Instead, they must recognize themselves as geopolitical actors, navigating complex relationships with governments, managing risks from protectionist policies, and aligning with national industrial strategies. This shift requires companies to actively engage in shaping policy, understanding regional power dynamics, and strategically positioning themselves to mitigate risks while capitalizing on opportunities in a fragmented global landscape. Success in the second Trump administration will hinge on a corporation's ability to anticipate geopolitical shifts, influence policy decisions, and function as agile participants in a competitive, multipolar world.
4 December 2024 - What are the implications of Political Polarization for businesses?
Polarization has intensified in the U.S. and the Western world, impacting businesses significantly. In 2023, Bud Light faced backlash after hiring trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, losing over a quarter of its sales, a decline from which it has yet to recover. This controversy signaled a broader trend, with more companies in 2024 facing pushback for supporting “woke” values, leading to a pullback on policies like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion).
In 2024, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and others scaled back or discontinued their DEI programs and support for social events. These changes reflect efforts to align with conservative customer bases, as association with left-wing principles increasingly impacts sales and brand loyalty. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reported that 60% of consumers base purchasing decisions on their politics, highlighting the growing importance of political alignment for brands.
Multinational corporations are also facing internal and external pressures from their involvement in geopolitical issues. For instance, Google dealt with internal protests over its $1.2 billion contract with Israel, known as Project Nimbus, which drew criticism for its implications in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Google fired 50 employees, underscoring the internal tensions companies face when navigating contentious political matters.
The polarized environment has led to high-stakes consequences for corporate leaders. In 2024, Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave resigned following backlash over his comments on Israel, demonstrating the reputational risks associated with speaking on sensitive issues. Anti-Israel protests spreading across college campuses in the U.S. and beyond also pose long-term risks, as these attitudes may enter the corporate workforce in the future. Some companies have taken a strong stance by refusing to hire students involved in these protests, while others, like Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Dudum, initially supported the protesters, only to face financial backlash as the company’s stock dropped by 8%.
For corporations, engaging in political debates—directly or indirectly—can result in reputational damage, financial losses, and disrupted business partnerships.
⚠️ Implications for Corporations
🔁 Changing Market: In 2025, companies will face an increasingly polarized consumer base, particularly in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election and other major events.
⚡ Risk from Inaction: Companies that remain neutral may still face risks based on public perception and consumer interpretations of their actions (or inaction).
🤝 Reputational Harm: Businesses that publicly support political or social issues can expect reputational damage, declines in sales, and potential boycotts.
🚨 Online and Employee Safety: Harassment and threats may arise depending on the issue.
27 November 2024 - The Rise of Nationalism: Implications for Global Corporations
The resurgence of nationalism is part of the broader trend of weakening globalization. Nationalism, which prioritizes devotion to one’s nation, culture, and people, is rising worldwide. In Europe, once thought to have moved beyond nationalism with the EU project, a nationalist resurgence is visible. Brexit exemplifies this, as UK voters opted to reclaim control over fiscal and immigration policies. Similar nationalist shifts are occurring in the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, and Italy, while France and Germany are also contending with right-wing parties challenging the EU’s influence.
Historically, European nationalism has been linked to conflict, such as the revolts of 1848, the Serbian assassination that sparked World War I, and the rise of Nazism leading to World War II. While a repeat of this violence is unlikely, the increasing nationalist sentiment suggests that the EU and other supranational bodies could decline over the medium term.
Nationalism is also rising in the global south. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP promotes Hindu nationalism, emphasizing cultural ties with Hindu-influenced regions. In Latin America, countries like Brazil, Argentina, and El Salvador have seen the rise of right-wing nationalist leaders. Even the United States is experiencing a populist nationalist wave with former President Trump’s influence on the Republican Party.
Nationalism’s global revival, driven by economic and cultural anxieties, challenges multinational corporations (MNCs) as markets become more protectionist, signaling a shift towards a fragmented, less globalized world.
⚠️ Implications for Corporations
📉 Democratic Decline: The rise of nationalism may accelerate democratic backsliding, leading to increased political risks, arbitrary policymaking, and nationalization of industries in some regions.
🤝 Reputational Harm: Companies that collaborate with nationalist parties may face reputational risks internationally, although they may gain favor domestically with nationalist governments.
🫤 Employee Dissatisfaction: Many employees, particularly in technology firms, hold liberal views and may resist or protest corporate decisions aligned with nationalist policies, as seen at companies like Google and Amazon.
🛑 Value Opposition: Corporations that publicly support liberal social policies may face pushback from nationalist governments that oppose these values, potentially affecting their operations and reputation.
🚧 Resource Access Issues: Resource nationalism could impact supply chains, limiting access to essential raw materials and complicating international trade.
23 October 2024 - U.S. - China Decoupling
The U.S.-China relationship remains central in global politics, marked by rising tensions and economic decoupling that corporations must respond to. What does U.S.-China decoupling mean for businesses? Find out in our Executive Briefing Note.
16 October 2024 - Great Power Competition and Its Impact on Global Business
The resurgence of great power competition has become one of the most critical dynamics shaping global geopolitics today. After a relative period of calm following the Cold War, this rivalry has returned to the forefront of international relations, influencing the strategies of governments and businesses alike. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have recognized this reality in their respective National Security Strategies, acknowledging that competition between major powers—primarily the U.S., China, and Russia—is central to global stability. Recent events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the growing influence of China in Africa, and shifting alliances in Asia are all evidence of this renewed strategic rivalry.
Historically, great power politics revolves around the competition for influence, resources, and military power, often leading to shifts in global alliances and conflicts. In the past, the Cold War defined the bipolar rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with each power seeking to expand its ideological and strategic reach. Today, however, this competition is more multipolar, with China, Russia, and regional powers like India and Brazil playing critical roles in reshaping the global order. Nowhere is this more evident than in regions like Africa and Asia, where the strategic interests of these powers converge, leading to economic investment, military posturing, and proxy conflicts.
⚠️ For corporations, this renewed competition brings significant risks:
🚧 Trade Barriers: Companies may face tariffs and sanctions, as seen in the U.S.-China trade war.
🚛 Supply Chain Disruptions: Conflicts, such as those in Eastern Europe, can destabilize supply chains.
🏛️ Political Risk: Operating in contested regions exposes businesses to nationalization and instability.
💻 Technological Decoupling: U.S.-China tech rivalry could force companies to navigate different standards or markets.
🤝 Reputation Risks: Doing business in politically sensitive regions can pose ethical challenges and brand risks.
As great powers vie for dominance, multinational corporations must carefully assess these risks to thrive in an increasingly multipolar world.
See Insight Forward's Top 10 Geopolitical Risks for Businesses in 2025 here https://lnkd.in/eJpDKdDj
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.
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.
The Geopolitics of LGBTQ+
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.
The Geopolitics of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
© 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.