FAQ on Geopolitics

Democracy and technology

AI has political and institutional implications because the technology affects who is able to do what, and on what terms. When power shifts faster than governance can adapt, risk emerges.

AI can weaken democratic decision-making processes by gradually altering how decisions are prepared, prioritised and legitimised. When speed, complexity and automation exceed human judgement and institutional oversight, democratic shifts can occur without any formal rupture.

Democracy presupposes that power can be located. AI makes it easily diffuse.

AI amplifies misinformation because the technology optimises for probability, engagement and pattern recognition. That is often something different from what is fact-based or intellectually honest. When scale and speed increase faster than human judgement and institutional oversight can keep pace, misinformation emerges as a systemic side effect rather than an intention.

AI does not reward truth. It rewards patterns. It is leadership’s responsibility to understand the difference..

AI concentrates decision-making capacity in the hands of those who control data, computing power and models. This applies both to private companies and to state systems. When complex assessments are automated, real influence shifts from democratic processes to technical infrastructures.

At the same time, decisions become harder to scrutinise because they are complex, probabilistic and often opaque. This applies even to those who have built the algorithms.

AI influenceswhich problems appear urgent, which solutions seem realistic, and which alternatives never reach the table. This occurs through models, data selection and optimisation criteria that are rarely subject to democratic debate. As a result, an asymmetry emerges: decisions appear neutral, yet are already value-laden..

When countries develop AI within separate blocs, there is a risk of incompatible technical standards, parallel safety regimes and increased complexity for global businesses.

This may lead to situations where access to AI technology depends more on political alignment than on technical maturity or commercial potential.

Overinvestment, secrecy and strategic rivalry may create inefficiencies and instability long before the technology delivers its full potential.

Most technical challenges in AI can, in principle, be addressed: better data, fewer biases, improved learning architectures, more robust training, and so on. However, governance challenges can arise even in well-functioning systems if no one holds ultimate responsibility for the consequences.

AI systems do not make decisions in a vacuum. They embed values, priorities and assumptions. This makes errors systemic and therefore more difficult to identify, stop and correct.

The risk becomes particularly significant when AI is used to support decisions in public administration, credit assessment, insurance and access to resources, as well as for surveillance, behavioural management and the distribution of information.

In such cases, small variations in models can lead to major societal consequences.

For executives and boards, AI is about understanding which forms of power are being transferred, and from whom to whom. The key question is whether an organisation is willing to integrate AI assistants and agents into its operations, and whether it can understand and engage consciously with the decisions they make.

AI rewards those who understand governance before they scale the technology. AI operates across sectors, jurisdictions and time horizons. As a result, traditional regulation often arrives too late and addresses only part of the challenge. Governance includes the ability to adjust systems before they produce unintended consequences.

The risk is particularly significant when AI is deployed in high-trust, low-friction information environments such as news distribution and social media, political communication and elections, as well as advisory services, education and decision support. In these environments, small inaccuracies or biases can be repeated and scaled until they appear to represent a consensus. Algorithms tend to reward the most probable answer.

Even highly advanced systems can generate misleading content if they operate in environments without clear lines of accountability, source criticism and human oversight.

At a structural level, the technology accelerates the flow of information. Our institutions, however, are still designed for slow verification.

Topleadership technology
Top leadership geopolitics

Top leadership under geopolitics

Geopolitics, “follow the map”, is the study of how nations naturally translate their geography, resources, and populations into strengths and vulnerabilities.

Fragmentation therefore alters which other actors they pursue their interests alongside. This challenges corporate strategic optionality and increases, in particular, the value of access, relationships and political readability.

Yes, the rules based world order is under pressure. Rules will most likely remain but their application will be more selective. In its place, the world is becoming more transactional. In such an environment, power, interests and short-term exchanges weigh more heavily than shared norms. Competitiveness is determined by more than rational economics alone, including political positioning, access and relational power.

Many boards are composed on the assumption of stable market conditions and manageable internal constraints. Technological disruption and geopolitical rupture challenge both assumptions. We are likely to see far more of these in the coming years. As a result, classical board competencies can quickly prove insufficient.

Experience is a strength in stable periods. However, during times of disruption, it can sometimes limit our understanding of the world as it is evolving. We often assess new technologies and shifts in power through historical analogies and established assumptions. As a result, we may fail to recognise when the conditions that once made those assumptions valid no longer exist.

This creates a false sense of security and a tendency to interpret structural change as temporary volatility.

Yes. In a fragmented world, access becomes more important than efficiency, relationships more important than scale, and political legibility more important than rational market logic.

The change first manifests itself in the corporate risk landscape. Risk no longer arises solely from economic cycles or competition, but from decisions taken beyond the company’s reach. Sanctions, export controls or regulatory shifts can rapidly alter the conditions for otherwise well-functioning businesses.

Classical optimization loses some of its force, and concepts such as robustness, redundancy, and optionality move to the forefront. The focus shifts away from identifying the one right solution and toward preserving the ability to act when underlying assumptions change.

Companies with long or highly specialized supply chains are particularly exposed. Here, geopolitical fragmentation is no longer a backdrop but becomes part of the very structure of the business itself. It influences how strategy is conceived and articulated.

This implies, among other things, that old assumptions must be reconsidered. Strategic choices should always be accompanied by fallback options. In a world that is gradually fragmenting, only those who move in time retain their agency.

In practice, geopolitical fragmentation primarily means that new alliances and structures are replacing old ones. Major powers are drifting apart, while middle powers with shared interests are finding each other in new or stronger partnerships. It is a process of many small shifts unfolding at varying speeds.

Trade, technology and capital continue to move across borders, but no longer with the same assumption of rationality through familiar structures.

The system that has supported global corporate leadership since the 1980s has therefore become more unstable and situation-dependent. Political considerations are increasingly becoming part of decision-making.

There are, however, still relatively high levels of:

  • free movement of capital
  • increasing market integration (continued globalisation)
  • stable trade regimes
  • separation between economics and security policy

The pressure on the system stems from several converging factors:

  • major powers perceive rules as constraining their freedom of action
  • the gains from globalisation have become politically contested
  • institutions have proven slow relative to crises and technological change

When confidence in the consistent enforcement of rules weakens, actors begin to behave more opportunistically and with shorter time horizons. Relationships become more fluid, and stability depends increasingly on continuous negotiation. Predictability declines, while flexibility and relative power become more important.

Going forward, it will be essential to:

  • understand where rules apply, and where and why they do not
  • continuously assess political risk
  • build strategic resilience rather than optimal fit

During periods of geopolitical change, those who understand when the meaning and relevance of rules are shifting are often at an advantage. This is different from simply following the rules closely.

Top leadership and finance

Turnarounds are urgent, while risk is higher and room for manoeuvre more limited than in ordinary strategic transformations. Both involve changing course, but under very different conditions.

A turnaround becomes necessary when the company’s survival is at risk. This may be due to tight liquidity, loss of markets, structural decline in demand or sudden external shocks. In a turnaround situation, time is scarce, trust is weakened and the room for manoeuvre diminishes day by day.

In such situations, leadership is about stabilising the business, restoring credibility and (re)creating future optionality. Mistakes and delays are costly, and often irreversible.

When time, capital and trust suddenly become scarce resources, leadership becomes a matter of clarity and courage, shifting from growth to direction, and from consensus to accountability. Decisions must be taken more quickly and be more concrete. The central difficulty lies in ensuring that today’s operations deliver results without constraining tomorrow’s opportunities.

Without trust, room for manoeuvre disappears rapidly.

A war economy arises when the state’s primary objective shifts from growth, efficiency or welfare towards survival, mobilisation and military capacity. Economic priorities are then dictated by security considerations, and normal market and budgetary logics are wholly or partially suspended. A war economy can be rational in extreme circumstances. The risk, however, is that it quickly becomes permanent, self-reinforcing and detached from clear political objectives.

This makes it harder to identify a war economy and thus harder to wind up later on.

The more uncertain the environment becomes, the more leadership is about judgment rather than analysis, and about responsibility as a prerequisite for organizational backing. What becomes decisive is the willingness to make responsible decisions on the basis of incomplete information, facing an unclear future and the risk of asymmetric consequences.

Uncertainty cannot be eliminated. It can only be managed.

Decisions and the pace at which they are made should reflect the level of uncertainty. This applies equally to the need for action, the need for learning and the need to maintain organisational stability.

Both panic and perfectionism can undermine trust within the organisation.

When models fail and answers are lacking, the character of leadership becomes decisive.This includes:

  • the ability to stand by decisions
  • the willingness to take responsibility
  • the courage to act without guarantees
  • integrity in facing the consequences

Trust requires realism. Effective communication therefore depends on consistency and integrity, including:

  • openness about what is known and what is not known
  • clear principles for how decisions are made
  • a clear sense of direction without excessive promises

Uncertainty means that the range of possible future outcomes becomes wider. This makes some choices more robust than they might previously have appeared. It also increases the importance of certain principles and values.

Leadership under uncertainty is therefore, to a large extent, a normative responsibility.

Technology, geopolitics and security often fall between committees or are addressed on an ad hoc basis. When no one has a clear mandate to integrate the overall picture, discussions easily become fragmented. Boards may therefore end up responding to symptoms rather than underlying systemic shifts.

At the same time, many boards are strong on compliance and risk management within established frames of reference. The trade-off can be a weakness in strategic judgement or systemic understanding under conditions of uncertainty. Technological and geopolitical shifts require more than compliance. They require the ability to ask the right questions before the meaning and relevance of the rules begin to change.

Is the board prepared to make decisions with incomplete information? During periods of disruption, inaction is rarely the safe option; it is simply the least visible one.

Top leadership finance
Technology

Quantum tech and geopolitics

The first quantum computers with commercial potential are expected to become available before 2029, primarily for narrow and highly specialised applications. It will take many years before they can replace classical computers, as energy consumption and technical requirements remain too demanding. Access is therefore likely to be provided via cloud services.

Post-quantum security concerns protecting digital systems against future quantum computers that will be capable of breaking large parts of today’s encryption. The urgency arises because data collected today can be decrypted tomorrow, long before quantum computers are widely operational.

Post-quantum (or quantum-secure) cryptography refers to new cryptographic methods designed to withstand attacks from both classical and future quantum computers.

Quantum technology is often overestimated in terms of its timeline and maturity, yet underestimated in terms of its strategic consequences. The risk arises particularly in the period before the technology becomes operationally mature. In this phase, expectations, investments and security assumptions can run ahead of actual capability.

For a long time, the experience with quantum technology was: "everything is possible, but only in the laboratory.”

Quantum computers are, for example, highly sensitive to:

  • temperature, because superposition requires thermal energy to be lower than the energy difference between qubit states (typically 10–20 millikelvin above absolute zero at -273.15°C)
  • electromagnetic noise, for example from mobile communications
  • vibrations, for example from truck traffic or railways
  • cosmic radiation, which can cause bit flips

Quantum computers do exist today, but they remain in early stages. “Everything is possible — but only in the laboratory.” Current systems are:

  • sensitive to electromagnetic noise and cosmic radiation, which increase error rates
  • limited in scale and stability (fewer than 50 logical qubits)
  • dependent on advanced error-correcting software that is still under development
  • extremely energy-intensive due to cryogenic cooling close to absolute zero

Several additional breakthroughs are required before the systems become stable, persistent, and economically viable.

State actors are primarily interested in decryption. For several years, many intelligence agencies have therefore pursued “harvest now, decrypt later” strategies.

Commercial applications are expected mainly within:

  • optimization problems in logistics and planning
  • pharmaceutical research
  • materials science and chemistry
  • certain financial modeling tasks, including bond market simulations and portfolio optimization

What these applications have in common is that they can be mathematically delimited, tolerate uncertainty, and offer high potential gains even with limited precision.

For boards and executive teams, the key issue is understanding the transition phase. Quantum computers are likely to become commercially viable in narrow niches long before they become broadly applicable.

The winners will be those who:

  • quantum-secure their most critical data in good time
  • identify which specific simulations or optimisations can deliver strategic value
  • build relationships with the institutions and companies establishing the first commercial quantum platforms

Quantum technology is a strategic resource at a level comparable to space technology and nuclear energy. It is particularly relevant for military communications and encryption, intelligence and signal interception, as well as advanced simulation and weapons development.

In addition, its development requires access to scarce resources and, above all, very deep expertise. This makes it vulnerable to fragmentation, export controls and state protection. As a result, quantum technology development is concentrated in a small number of states and companies, which is why it is of clear geopolitical significance.

When technology reaches this level of strategic importance, open research is gradually replaced by national security considerations. This slows down collaboration and increases the risk of parallel, incompatible technological ecosystems.

Quantum technology depends on access to:

  • advanced chips (EUV)
  • cryogenic equipment
  • rare materials and precision components

However, quantum technology is above all extremely knowledge-intensive. Restrictions on researcher mobility, visa regimes and knowledge sharing can reduce the pace of innovation, create national “knowledge pockets”, and increase the risk of strategic mistrust.

At the same time, the boundary between open research and security policy becomes increasingly blurred.

For boards and executive teams, quantum technology is not only about innovation, but also about positioning. It becomes essential to understand:

  • which alliances the technology is being developed within
  • which dependencies are being created
  • and which political risks follow from them

Quantum technology rewards those who can navigate geopolitically, not only technologically.

Post-quantum security, in turn, rewards those who start early and maintain a clear, realistic perspective.