Geopolitics
Analysts and former diplomats who decode shifting global power dynamics, alliances, and the forces redrawing the world map
European policy is no longer a background variable. Migration, defence, energy, competitiveness, the rule of law, and the regulatory rulebook for AI and industry are all being decided in Brussels and Strasbourg, often on margins of a few votes. Boards and executive teams need to read where Europe is going, who is shaping it, and what that means for capital allocation across the next planning cycle.
Boards that depend on Russia, the Baltics, or the wider post-Soviet space need more than headline analysis. They need someone who has worked inside Russian newsrooms, sat across the table from the Kremlin as a Western corporate, and still files weekly from outside the country. The gap between sanctioned narratives and operating reality is where bad decisions happen.
Boards and investment committees are making capital decisions on geopolitical assumptions that no longer hold. The categories most institutions still use to assess country risk and global exposure were built for a system that is fracturing. Misreading the new map costs capital and market position.
Strategy built for national markets and capital-intensive competition is now a liability, not a framework. Urbanisation, the feminisation of skilled workforces, and the structural erosion of imitation as viable strategy have redrawn the competitive map. The organisations that grasp this shift first will set the terms of the next era of competition – not manage its consequences.
Western organisations built their strategies on assumptions – about US primacy, open multilateralism, and a rules-based order – that are now visibly fracturing. The US-China contest is not a temporary disruption; it is restructuring trade flows, technology standards, institutional loyalties, and investment calculus simultaneously. Most leadership teams are making consequential decisions about market exposure, supply chain architecture, and geopolitical alignment without a working model of how the shift actually operates.
Boards are being asked to price political risk into decisions they used to treat as commercial. Sanctions exposure, defence spending shifts, transatlantic friction and the unwinding of cheap globalisation now sit on the same agenda as capital allocation and operating strategy. Most leadership teams lack a reliable read on how policy decisions in Washington, Berlin and Brussels will land in their P and L.
Boards are now making capital, supply and partnership decisions inside a fractured rules-based order. Russia, the EU, sanctions regimes and the politics of multilateral finance are no longer specialist files; they sit on the agenda of any company with cross-border exposure. Senior teams need a reader of those systems who has covered them as a journalist and helped run them from inside an international institution.
Boards and investment committees need a clear read on US politics that does not collapse into partisan noise or cable news shorthand. The conservative movement has fractured, institutional trust is thin, and policy direction now turns on factional fights inside one party rather than the old left-right contest. Leaders need someone who can explain what is actually happening on the American right, why it matters for risk, and which signals to take seriously.
Boards are being asked to underwrite decisions on supply chains, capital allocation, and market entry while the rules underpinning the global trading system shift week to week. Most leadership teams read the same headlines as everyone else and try to translate them into operating decisions on instinct. The gap between political signal and commercial consequence is where reputations and balance sheets get damaged.
Boards are being asked to make capital, supply-chain and people decisions against a backdrop of war in Europe, US-China decoupling, and political volatility in markets that used to be dependable. The headlines move faster than the analysis, and most internal briefings rely on the same wire copy as everyone else. What leaders need is someone who has watched these countries up close, over decades, and can tell them which signals matter.
Decisions in boardrooms now turn on what happens in Westminster, Whitehall and the lobby room behind it. Senior leaders need a read on the people, the pressure points and the political calendar that no policy paper provides. The gap is between the headlines and the actual mechanics of power.
Boards are being asked to price political risk into capital decisions they used to take on autopilot. Russia, China, the German economic engine, the durability of the transatlantic alliance, each is now a variable rather than a backdrop. Leaders need someone who can read the politics from inside the room, not summarise it from the headlines.