Geopolitics
Analysts and former diplomats who decode shifting global power dynamics, alliances, and the forces redrawing the world map
Most commentary on the Middle East is authored by people who were never inside the room. The decisions that shape the region, and that now shape energy, trade, migration and terrorism risk for organisations operating far from it, are rarely explained by those who made them. Understanding where the process currently stands, and what realistically might move it, requires someone who negotiated on behalf of a government and has since written about the limits of that process.
India is the world’s most populous country, its fastest-growing major economy, and one of the least predictable actors in the current geopolitical order – pursuing strategic autonomy rather than alignment with any existing bloc. Most organisations entering or deepening their exposure to India are working from economic data and market analysis, with almost no framework for the historical and political dynamics that actually drive its decisions. The post-war multilateral institutions that once made global engagement legible are under visible strain, and the countries of the Global South – India above all – are now asserting a different set of terms.
Senior teams routinely have to set rules, contracts and incentives for parties who know things they will not share and whose interests do not fully align with the firm’s. Auctions, supplier contracts, sales compensation, internal capital allocation and partnership governance all fail in the same way: the rules reward the wrong behaviour because they were designed without a model of how informed agents will actually game them. The question is not how to motivate people. It is how to design the rules so that telling the truth and acting in the firm’s interest become the rational choice.
Boards are making capital decisions inside the most disordered macroeconomic environment in a generation. Inflation has not behaved as the textbooks said it would, monetary policy is fighting itself, and structural shocks from AI to Brexit to deglobalisation are landing on top of cyclical pressure. Leaders need a reading of the economy that connects rates, prices, productivity and policy into a single coherent view they can act on.
The rules governing trade, alliances, and international stability that executives have relied on for decades were designed for a different world. Power is now distributed across dozens of actors – state and non-state – with no single authority able to impose order or enforce commitments. Organisations that continue to plan as though the post-war settlement still holds are carrying strategic risk they cannot see.
Boards keep being surprised by which economies grow and which stall. Standard indicators fail to capture the mechanism, because growth depends on productive capabilities that GDP figures and governance scores cannot see. The harder question is what an economy can actually make, and which adjacent industries that capability opens up.
Most organisations treat global economic disruption as a forecasting problem – something that better data or faster analysis will solve. It isn’t. The structural imbalances that produce financial crises and political instability build slowly, in plain sight, and are routinely dismissed until they cannot be. Boards that conflate cyclical volatility with structural fault lines make capital allocation, market entry, and risk decisions on the wrong basis – and find out only when the correction arrives.
Most boardrooms frame geopolitical risk as a disruption to manage, not a structural shift to understand. The assumptions that have shaped Western business strategy for three decades – American dominance, rules-based trade, stable energy markets – are no longer reliable. Organisations making ten-year decisions need a framework for reading the world that goes deeper than today’s news cycle.
Boards built their growth strategies on the assumption that the rules of trade would hold. They no longer hold. Tariffs, sanctions, industrial policy and export controls have moved from the margin to the centre of capital allocation, and most leadership teams lack a coherent map of how the system is being rewired or where their exposure now sits.
Boards in capital-intensive industries are being asked to decarbonise on a political timetable, fund the transition through volatile commodity cycles, and stay supplied through a fracturing energy map. The textbook answers stop working when the gas comes from a sanctioned country and the renewables build-out lags the policy commitment. Few people have made these decisions at the scale of a national champion, with sovereign and shareholder pressure on both sides.
The post-1945 order has quietly stopped behaving the way most strategy decks assume. Power has shifted toward populations the West used to treat as peripheral, and the populism reshaping rich democracies has far older roots than the current cycle. Boards making long-horizon calls feel that change without a clear account of what is driving it.