Geopolitics speakers
Analysts and former diplomats who decode shifting global power dynamics, alliances, and the forces redrawing the world map
Speakers Associates represents 276 speakers on Geopolitics, including Nikolas Badminton, Caspar Veldkamp, Dominic Sandbrook, Federica Mogherini, Paolo Petrocelli, Lord Kim Darroch, Dame Wendy Hall, Marcelo Carvalho, Elena Boheme and Stefan Löfven.
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.
Culture has become an instrument of statecraft, brand, and influence, yet most organisations still treat it as a sponsorship line item rather than a strategic asset. Leaders who want to use cultural capital to open markets, attract talent, or build international standing rarely know how to operationalise it. The gap between cultural ambition and cultural capability is widening.
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.
Boards are being asked to plan capital, hiring, and pricing through a cycle they cannot read. The standard macro briefing is too abstract to be useful, and the in-house view is rarely anchored in evidence about how policy actually reaches households and firms. Leaders need someone who can connect rate decisions, fiscal choices, and inequality to the parts of their business that actually move.
Boards are being asked to commit capital across a world where the rules of trade, alliance and supply have stopped holding. China exposure, sanctions regimes, climate-driven migration and the reordering of supply chains now sit inside investment cases that were once treated as macro background. Leaders need a way to read the new map before they price the next decision.
Most Western boards make capital allocation and supply chain decisions about China using mental models that are a decade out of date. The country has moved from copying Western products to setting the innovation standard in whole categories, while its political and economic logic remains opaque. The result is a steady stream of strategic misjudgements at the moment when getting China right matters most.
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.
Free expression has become a corporate risk question, not only a civic one. Leaders are now asked to take positions on contested public issues, manage employees who do the same, and operate in markets where satire and dissent are increasingly punished. Holding a clear view on what is sayable, by whom, and at what cost has become part of the job.
Satellite and space infrastructure has quietly become foundational to both modern markets and modern defence. Few boards have caught up. European sovereignty in secure connectivity is now a political priority, and leaders need to understand what that shift means for competitiveness.
Organisations making commitments on energy transition and supply chain sustainability cannot afford to treat China as a black box – yet most lack any reliable way to read Chinese government priorities, policy signals, or green innovation trajectories with operational precision. The result is strategy built on assumption: either over-reading China’s stated commitments or underestimating the scale and pace of what is actually being implemented at city and provincial level. For boards navigating ESG exposure, partner risk, and long-term energy strategy, this blind spot has material consequences.
Boards used to treat geopolitics as background noise. Sanctions, trade rerouting, US-UK alignment and supply chain exposure now sit on the same agenda as capital allocation and operating plans. Most leadership teams lack a credible internal voice on what governments actually do next, and on how policy choices in Washington, Westminster and Brussels translate into commercial risk.
Boards face energy and economic decisions whose payoff curves now bend on political timing, not market signals. Sanctions, decoupling pressure, and the Energiewende have made European industrial strategy a question of state capacity as much as capital allocation. Leaders need a read on how those calls actually get made inside government.