Key Takeaways

· Asia is converting a century-old weakness into a defining strategic advantage, though the transition remains gradual. The region imports more fossil fuel than anywhere on earth, so building its own solar panels and batteries strengthens homegrown energy security. Yet traditional energy and nuclear power remain essential to grid stability,…

Read more

Read more

• While a Chinese military seizure of Taiwan is a tail risk, its consequences would be severe enough to demand serious attention from any business leader.

• Taiwan is the world’s single point of failure, sitting at the intersection of the global economy, the Pacific defence line, and the nuclear balance.

• The most likely path keeps the guns silent…

Read more

That world is now fading. China has grown from about 4% of global GDP in 1990 to close to one-fifth today, while Asia may soon account for roughly half of world output. The EU’s share has slipped toward 14–16% and will likely drift lower as growth averages only about 1–1.5% a year against faster-growing Asian peers. The Union houses roughly 6% of global population and one-seventh of global output, but lacks the scale, military capacity and political cohesion to act as a truly independent actor. Defence spending has climbed toward or above 2% of GDP in many member states, adding perhaps 100-150 billion euros a year compared with pre-Ukraine levels, yet this mainly restores minimal deterrence under a U.S. nuclear and technological umbrella. At worst, Europe—including Russia—faces some form of vassalage to the U.S. and China. At best, it will be a large, rich, strategically constrained ‘civilian power’: influential via market size, capital and regulation, but importing security and unable to set global rules alone. In a system where Xi courts Trump and Putin as primary counterparts, the emerging order is U.S.– China-centred; Europe is an important but secondary node, perhaps even a prize to be competed over. Even with booms and possible busts, AI will only reinforce these trends.

To avoid strategic narcissism, European businesses and investors might consider these four practical implications:

1. Tilt towards strategic-autonomy beneficiaries: Europe’s effort to cut reliance on Russian energy, U.S. tech and Chinese manufacturing is mobilising hundreds of billions of euros for energy systems, defence, digital infrastructure and critical technologies. Focus on firms tied to grids, storage, renewables, defence platforms, cybersecurity, semiconductors, batteries and critical raw-material chains, but stay selective on execution and policy risk. In mining, geography matters as much as geology

2. Reduce single-bloc risk in portfolios: A richer but more fiscally and demographically stressed Western bloc raises the odds of heavier taxation, financial repression and abrupt regulatory shifts in euro- and dollar-area assets. Mitigate this by diversifying across jurisdictions and currencies, adding exposure to high-quality assets in non-aligned or hedging regions and building holdings of real assets—core infrastructure, prime real estate and commodity-linked positions—that can preserve value across inflation and currency regimes

3. Treat ‘owning Europe’ as a quality and cash-flow bet: With structural growth low and the EU’s share of global GDP edging down, broad European exposure is unlikely to be a strong growth proxy. Concentrate on firms with durable moats, global reach and pricing power—high-end industrials, capital-goods makers, luxury and branded consumer names, mission-critical software and services, and health-care and life-science innovators—while structurally underweighting commoditised manufacturing, generic energy and heavily constrained banks, except in clearly defined turnaround cases. Always beware of China’s impacts on manufacturing moats and assume long-term leakage of valuable intellectual property to Chinese rivals

4. Embed U.S.–China rivalry into every risk assessment: Export controls, tech bans, localisation mandates and subsidy races will remain structural features of the environment, however a Trump–Xi–Putin triangle evolves. For each position, map revenue, supply-chain, data and IP exposure to both blocs and adjust required returns accordingly, favouring businesses able to operate across spheres via local production in multiple jurisdictions, diversified end-markets and redundant supply chains, and treating ‘bloc-flexibility’ as a core risk factor alongside traditional quality and cash-flow metrics

· The Iran war is evolving from a fast strike campaign into a longer geoeconomic shock, with Hormuz disruption, suspended crude and LNG flows, and hardline continuity in Tehran extending the regional risk premium.

· Iran’s ballistic missile threat is easing, but its cheaper and more scalable drone campaign, combined with risks to desalination, shipping, and energy infrastructure, can keep economic pressure elevated for weeks or months.

· Our base case sees 2 to 3 months of effective Hormuz disruption, while unresolved nuclear material preserves a durable strategic overhang.

The war is shifting from a short strike campaign into a longer contest over endurance, infrastructure, and economic pain tolerance, which pushes our scenarios toward prolonged disruption and a wider regional risk premium. Shipping through Hormuz has slowed to a near standstill, roughly a fifth of global crude and gas supply has been suspended, Qatar has declared force majeure on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports, and Mojtaba Khamenei’s elevation as the new Supreme Leader of Iran, replacing his father, keeps hardliners and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) at the centre of power. This combination supports a reweighting toward a longer shock to energy, shipping, and Gulf investor confidence.

· Scenario shift. We are placing greater weight on duration. The key change is a longer period of economic friction across shipping, insurance, energy, and regional assets.

· Why markets care. The transmission channels now run well beyond oil prices alone. LNG, tanker traffic, war-risk premiums, desalination vulnerability, sovereign spreads, and Gulf equities all sit inside the same risk map.

· Political signal. Tehran has chosen continuity under fire. That strengthens the case for endurance, retaliation, and a firmer risk premium across the region.

Iran’s ballistic missile threat is degrading, yet it still matters because even lower launch volumes can sustain market stress when combined with drone pressure and infrastructure strikes. Israel’s military had put Iran’s stockpile at roughly 2,500 missiles on the low end, while Iranian retaliation had already crossed more than 500 ballistic missiles and more than 2,000 drones. Launch volume alone therefore points to meaningful depletion, and sustained attacks on missile and launcher systems likely push usable capacity materially lower.

· Burn rate. On the lower-bound estimate, launch volume alone has already consumed a significant share of the starting inventory. Once battlefield attrition is added, effective capacity looks thinner still.

· Operational squeeze. Iran can still fire, but each salvo now sits inside a more demanding operational environment as allied air power keeps pressure on missile and launcher systems.

· Market meaning. Lower ballistic tempo helps, yet it does not clear the macro shock. Other vectors of disruption remain active and economically potent.

The larger strategic concern is Iran’s drone campaign, because it is cheaper, more scalable, and more durable than the ballistic campaign. Iran has industrial capacity to produce around 10,000 drones per month, and analysts assess that drone attacks alone could keep the Strait of Hormuz under pressure for months, especially if Tehran pivots toward naval mines as missile inventories tighten. The economics also favour Tehran, with the U.S. and Qatar already exploring cheaper Ukrainian interceptor drones because existing defensive options are so expensive against Shahed-type systems.

· Dispersed production. Dual-use manufacturing gives the drone campaign resilience under sustained bombardment. That keeps Tehran in the fight even as missile volumes ease.

· Endurance contest. Cheap one-way attack drones force defenders into a more expensive and inventory-intensive response. This is an attritional contest as much as a tactical one.

· Time horizon. Weeks are credible, and months sit comfortably inside the scenario set if production nodes keep running and mine warfare joins the picture.

Water infrastructure has entered the target set, which materially enlarges the downside because desalination sits at the heart of Gulf urban survival. Bahrain said an Iranian drone damaged a desalination plant, marking the first reported strike on Gulf drinking-water infrastructure, and Iran’s temporary pledge to spare nearby states unless attacks come from their territory shows Tehran understands that water targets are a high-escalation lever. In a region that hosts more than 40% of global desalination capacity, even a limited campaign against major plants would turn a military clash into a civilian and economic emergency.

· Civilian lifeline. Desalination plants are strategic infrastructure and CIA analysis warned that attacks on desalination facilities could trigger national crisis in several of the Gulf States. In the Gulf, water security underpins cities, industry, labour flows, and political stability.

· Escalation threshold. A major desalination hit in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would expand pressure on Tehran from regional and external actors alike. The political cost would rise quickly.

· Portfolio implication. Investors should treat water, power, ports, airports, and refineries as a linked vulnerability set. That supports higher insurance costs, wider sovereign spreads, and more volatility in regional equities.

Read more

Read more

The U.S. operation in Venezuela marks the emergence of a new operating model of power, where deterrence is anchored in execution rather than signalling and influence is exercised through speed, integration, and irreversible outcomes. This shift reinforces a return to spheres-of-influence logic, reshapes how escalation thresholds are understood, and reframes energy as a long-cycle instrument of leverage rather than a near-term market variable. The immediate market impact remains contained, while the enduring consequences sit in strategic learning, energy optionality, and the normalisation of compressed-timeline intervention by major powers.

A new deterrence playbook takes shape

The Venezuela operation confirms a return to a spheres-of-influence world, where major powers act decisively within core regions and accept greater latitude in enforcement. The United States demonstrated a willingness to compress timelines, integrate intelligence with cyber and kinetic tools, and impose political outcomes before external actors could mobilise a response.

This operation resets deterrence credibility in the Western Hemisphere and recalibrates expectations globally. Deterrence now rests less on signalling and more on demonstrated execution.

Key dynamics

• Operational deterrence restored. The collapse of time between posture and action anchors credibility in enforcement rather than intent. This shifts how allies and adversaries assess U.S. red lines.

• Adversary credibility erosion. The inability of Russian and Chinese intelligence systems, Cuban security services, and advanced air-defence platforms to detect or disrupt the operation weakens the perceived reliability of their security guarantees.

• Selective enforcement as the norm. The operation reinforces a power-based model of order that privileges control and speed over multilateral constraint.

What happened in Venezuela

In the early hours of Saturday, the United States executed Operation Absolute Resolve, a tightly integrated military and intelligence mission that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The operation followed months of intelligence preparation and was authorised shortly before midnight Eastern Time.

More than 150 aircraft launched from approximately twenty bases across the Western Hemisphere. Cyber and space-based effects disrupted command, communications, and air-defence systems, enabling precision strikes and a special operations extraction force to reach Maduro’s compound shortly after 1:00 a.m.

U.S. helicopters came under fire during insertion and withdrawal and responded with overwhelming force in self-defence. Russian-supplied air-defence systems remained inactive throughout. By 3:29 a.m., the extraction force exited Venezuelan airspace with Maduro in U.S. custody.

Washington subsequently signalled oversight of a transitional phase focused on security and the oil sector. Official messaging prioritised control and stabilisation of energy assets, with oil referenced far more frequently than political reform.

Strategic consequences beyond Venezuela

The operation carries implications well beyond Caracas. It reinforces a logic of decisive action within perceived spheres of influence and normalises political faits accomplis executed at speed. For Russia and China, the signal is clear and asymmetric. U.S. willingness to act has been demonstrated, while the credibility of their counter-capabilities has been called into question.

Read more

Read more

• The logistics of travel to and work in th…

Read more

Read more

· The decisive issue comes from three strategic paths the war can follow based on the level of U.S. w…

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

Key Insights

• China’s leverage. Beijing controls more than 90% of rare earth processing, giving it near-term bargaining power that can disrupt autos, defense, and tech su…

Read more