Geopolitics as strategy: Building resilient businesses in 2026

Geopolitics is no longer something happening “out there.” It is already shaping markets, supply chains, and strategic decisions. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran are escalating again. Questions around NATO - and America’s commitment to it - are no longer theoretical. China continues to apply pressure on Taiwan without crossing the line into open conflict. And from a Danish perspective, the conversation around Greenland has shifted from unlikely to unavoidable. None of these developments exist in isolation. Together, they point to something deeper: a world where uncertainty is no longer the exception, but the condition. For business leaders, that changes the game. The question is no longer how to react - but how to build a business that can operate in it.

#geopolitics #resilience #leadershipinuncertainty #riskmanagement #supplychain

In this piece, we explore:

• Why geopolitics is no longer background noise - but a core part of how businesses operate and compete

• What recent developments - from Iran and NATO to Taiwan, Greenland, and Ukraine - reveal about the direction the world is moving in

• Why uncertainty is no longer just a risk to manage, but a condition that shapes decisions, investments, and strategy

• What it takes to build organizations that are resilient enough to operate in this environment

From tariffs to tectonic shifts

A year ago, the business conversation around geopolitics was still largely framed through tariffs, trade barriers, and the immediate economic consequences of Donald Trump’s return to office.

I wrote about this shift myself at the time (Trump, tariffs, and turbulence: Navigating geopolitical uncertainty in business), and that lens still matters.

But it is no longer sufficient. What has changed is not just the level of tension - but the nature of it.

A year in, the picture is broader, more structural, and more unsettled. The question for business leaders in 2026 is no longer just how to respond to higher costs or political noise.

It is how to operate when the system itself is less predictable and less stable.

From events to environment

We are no longer dealing with isolated geopolitical events. We are operating in a world where friction is continuous. That is the most important shift.

The past months have made that clear. The U.S. has created uncertainty not only through trade policy, but through its stance on alliances. Most recently, the war with Iran - and disagreements with European allies - have again raised questions about NATO’s role and American commitments.

And even in the middle of an active conflict, alignment cannot be taken for granted. Alliances are being tested in real time - and the outcomes are not always predictable.

For business, that matters.

Companies don’t just depend on markets - they depend on underlying assumptions. That goods move freely across borders. That suppliers remain accessible. That alliances create a degree of stability. That rules, regulations, and access conditions remain stable.

When those assumptions weaken, planning becomes more complex.

Decisions that used to be straightforward - where to source, how much to stock, which markets to prioritize - start to involve a different kind of judgement.

That is where complexity rises. Not because the business itself has changed, but because the environment it operates in has.

China, Taiwan, and the cost of “not knowing”

Companies operate on assumptions - about access, stability, and continuity. Taiwan shows what happens when those assumptions weaken and leaders must make decisions without clarity.

The key insight is not whether conflict is imminent. It is that the lack of clarity itself has economic consequences.

Companies don’t know if or when tensions will escalate - but they know the risk exists.

And that uncertainty shapes decisions today.

Take semiconductors as an example. Semiconductors are the small but essential components that power everything from smartphones and cars to data centers and industrial systems. A large share of global production is concentrated in Taiwan.

A company may not expect an immediate disruption - but it knows that a single geopolitical flashpoint sits at the center of a critical supply chain. That alone is enough to influence sourcing strategies, partnerships, and long-term investments.

Should you diversify suppliers? Accept higher costs for redundancy? Increase inventory - or avoid locking up capital?

The absence of conflict does not remove the risk.

And waiting for certainty in geopolitics is often a strategic mistake. By the time clarity arrives, the room to act has already narrowed.

Ukraine: When instability becomes normal

If Taiwan shows how uncertainty shapes decisions, Ukraine shows what happens when instability becomes part of the operating environment.

More than two years into the war, it has become a clear example of how conflict can settle into a persistent condition - no longer a temporary disruption, but something businesses must learn to operate within.

That shift has wide-ranging consequences. Energy markets remain volatile. Logistics are repeatedly disrupted. Cyber risk becomes a constant rather than an exception. Sanctions evolve over time, reshaping access and partnerships. And public and political expectations of companies continue to shift alongside the conflict.

At the same time, instability is not only destructive - it is also generative. The war is accelerating innovation across defense, energy systems, and technology.

Take energy as an example. Europe’s push to reduce dependence on Russian gas has significantly accelerated investment in renewables, energy infrastructure, and new supply chains. What might otherwise have taken a decade is being compressed into a few years.

Pressure rarely pauses change. It tends to speed it up.

For business leaders, the takeaway is uncomfortable but necessary: We can no longer assume that conflicts will resolve quickly enough to sit them out.

Greenland: A Danish wake-up call

From a Danish perspective, Greenland has been a striking reminder of how quickly geopolitics can move from abstract to personal.

The meeting between Denmark’s Foreign Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier this year captured that tension. Convened in the wake of renewed American interest in Greenland, the meeting was framed as a dialogue on cooperation - but for many in Denmark, it underlined how real - and how close to home - questions of sovereignty and strategic control had become.

At the same time, it was made clear - backed by several European allies - that Greenland is not something that can simply be taken or negotiated away on unilateral terms.

As a Dane, it has been surreal to witness.

But beyond the political drama, is there a deeper business lesson in what we have just witnessed?

Trump’s attempted push for Greenland may seem like an outlier - but it raises a more fundamental question: What happens when assets and regions once considered stable become subject to geopolitical competition?

The Arctic is about minerals, shipping routes, and military positioning.

And that has a clear implication for companies - one that is easy to underestimate:

Geography is no longer neutral.

Where you operate, source, and invest increasingly carries strategic weight.

What resilient leadership looks like in 2026

This is where the analysis becomes practical. If the world is becoming more contested, more political, and less predictable, then the task of leadership changes with it.

In 2026, leadership is not about predicting geopolitics correctly. It is about building organizations that are less fragile when the world becomes more uncertain - and more resilient when the assumptions they rely on no longer hold.

That leads to four practical implications.

1. Strategy must include geopolitical assumptions

Not as a footnote, but as a core element of decision-making. Which parts of your business depend on stability you do not control? Which suppliers, markets, or partnerships rely on political conditions that may no longer be as durable as assumed?

A company sourcing critical components from a single Asian market may have built its strategy around cost and efficiency. Today, it also needs to ask whether that strategy holds if access becomes restricted, delayed, or politically sensitive within the next 12–24 months.

2. Resilience must be designed, not improvised

Optionality in sourcing, stronger scenario planning, financial buffers, and clearer crisis governance are not signs of caution. They are signs of maturity. In a more volatile environment, resilience becomes a competitive advantage.

A business that previously relied on one primary supplier may now choose to build dual sourcing, hold more strategic inventory, or accept slightly higher costs in exchange for greater reliability

3. Uncertainty must be translated, not ignored

Leaders need to help their organizations make sense of what is changing. Not with perfect answers, but with clear thinking. In uncertain times, people need more than information - they need interpretation, prioritization, and direction.

Instead of simply acknowledging geopolitical risk, leadership teams can explicitly communicate how developments - such as tensions around Taiwan or shifts in alliances - affect priorities, investments, and risk tolerance across the organization.

4. Instability can also be a driver of innovation

Periods of pressure do not only expose weakness. They also accelerate adaptation. Some of the most important breakthroughs happen when companies are forced to rethink dependencies, invest faster, and build differently. The question is whether your organization is positioned to adapt - or only to react.

Companies exposed to energy volatility or supply chain disruption may accelerate investments in alternative energy sources, local production, or new technologies that reduce dependency on fragile systems.

This is also why initiatives like the Copenhagen Security Summit - an initiative I helped launch with Børsen and partners in 2025 - are becoming increasingly relevant. Bringing together business leaders, policymakers, and experts to discuss geopolitics, defense, security, and technology is no longer a niche exercise.

It reflects a broader shift: Understanding geopolitical dynamics is becoming a core leadership capability. Because understanding the world is no longer separate from running a company. It is part of the job.

A final reflection

One year into this phase of geopolitical tension, many leaders are still tempted to treat it as temporary. Something to outlast.

I’m not sure that is the right reading anymore.

A more honest interpretation is this: We are entering a period where geopolitical instability is not an interruption to business planning. It is part of it.

That does not mean leaders should become pessimistic.

But it does require a shift in mindset.

Because the companies that will navigate this environment best are not necessarily those with the boldest forecasts - but those with the strongest resilience.