Building a resilient enterprise in today's world requires treating geopolitical intelligence not as a static report to be read, but as a first, enterprise wide step for dynamic game plan to be executed. Our current analysis of the Baltic Sea provides a perfect real-world example of this principle. We have raised the likelihood of an "Incremental escalation" scenario to "Possible" within upcoming six months. This scenario involves Russia increasing pressure through even more overt hybrid tactics, such as heightened naval and air activity and disruptive actions against infrastructure designed to test NATO's resolve while avoiding direct conflict. In principle, we are talking about the escalation short of war.
For businesses, this scenario would primarily manifest as friction in maritime logistics and supply chains. The eastern and central Baltic Sea would become a high-risk operational zone, very likely leading to rerouting, targeted inspections, and delays for shipments. While general war-risk surcharges are unlikely, localized insurance premiums for specific routes could be introduced, and long-term investment might begin to shift westward as a hedge against instability. This is where the "team sport", the concept for collaboration becomes critical. The intelligence estimation should trigger specific plays for different parts of the organization. Below are some examples of the key coordination points this scenario should activate:
Legal: The legal team's first play is to get ahead of contractual risk. "Gray zone" warfare creates ambiguity, and they must assess whether standard force majeure clauses would apply to disruptions like GPS jamming or if the company would be exposed to breach of contract claims. They also need to map potential gaps in insurance coverage for these specific hybrid perils and get clarity from underwriters, as a port cyber-attack might not be covered by either standard or war-risk policies. This involves developing a legally-defensible framework for what constitutes an "unsafe" port, linking intelligence criteria to operational decisions.
Governmental Affairs: The GA team's role shifts to shaping the environment and managing political capital. An incident in the Baltic could trigger rushed, burdensome regulations. The GA team's job is to proactively engage with policymakers to advocate for sensible, industry-informed rules. They also need a clear protocol for communicating with host governments if the company decides to avoid a port, framing it as a shared security concern to avoid diplomatic friction. Furthermore, they should be preparing for increased government scrutiny of supply chain security by auditing dependencies and positioning the company as a "trusted partner."
This same proactive coordination should extend to the finance and treasury teams, sourcing and strategy teams, and beyond – even sales. For example, finance's critical role is to quantify the financial exposure created by these operational and legal risks. This involves modeling the bottom-line impact of increased shipping costs and insurance premiums on quarterly earnings, assessing potential currency volatility in the affected region, and preparing a clear, data-driven narrative for investors and analysts that explains the company's exposure and its resilience measures. This financial preparedness ensures that the strategic response is grounded in a clear understanding of its cost and value.
Ultimately, this is the new reality of geopolitical risk management. It's not a spectator sport, and it can't be won by a single, isolated department. Success requires a unified team, a shared playbook, and the ability to coordinate action across the entire field. The current geopolitical world is a horizontal force, it doesn't respect departmental boundaries.