Interview with Viktoriya Zakrevskaya, Founder of Boldozer Consulting

Photo credit: Boldozer Consulting

Viktoriya, why has geopolitics become such a pressing issue for business in recent years?

Because the assumptions businesses operated under for the past three decades (around legal certainty, market openness, and political stability)  are no longer valid. Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, it has become undeniable that political power, not just economic logic, drives access to resources, markets, and even technologies. We are entering a phase of the global economy where statecraft, sanctions, war, and alliances matter just as much as innovation or supply and demand. For business leaders, ignoring geopolitics now means building strategy on incomplete foundations.

What exactly changed after 2022?

What changed is not just the scale of conflict, but the loss of predictability. The war in Ukraine was the clearest rupture in the post-Cold War order. But its ripple effects have exposed deeper vulnerabilities: rising resource nationalism, weaponized interdependence, and the collapse of multilateral norms. Sanctions became a daily operational concern, and not just for legal teams, but for traders, suppliers, investors. Compliance systems that were once reactive must now anticipate political intent. What used to be an exceptional disruption has become structural. We are not going back to business as usual. Companies must learn to operate in this new normal: where legal exposure, political pressure, and narrative risk are constantly in flux.

Traditionally, companies viewed geopolitical risk through the lens of ‘country risk.’ Is that still a valid model?

The country-risk model, built into many corporate compliance frameworks, is outdated. It was developed for a world of relatively stable, rules-based international relations. It assumes that risks can be confined within borders and categorized neatly. Today, that’s no longer the case. Geopolitics now cuts across the entire supply chain -- horizontally. A regulatory dispute in Brussels, a court ruling in Delhi, or a shift in maritime policy in the Red Sea can all impact the same product line. Risk travels faster than before, through sanctions lists, banking rules, data flows, and reputational pressure. This is why I often say that every compliance-intensive business needs its own Machiavelli: someone who understands power, perception, and strategy. We’re back to an era where war, fragmentation, and nationalism shape markets. Businesses need to respond not just legally, but politically and symbolically.

How does this change the way supply chains are managed?

It forces a complete rethinking of what resilience really means. Supply chains were traditionally optimized for efficiency and cost. Now they need to account for political friction, reputational exposure, and contested routes. We see companies quietly building parallel supply lines, developing contingency jurisdictions, and assessing suppliers not just on ESG or price, but on political alignment, data control, and strategic neutrality. The idea of ‘friend-shoring’ or ‘near-shoring’ is only the surface. The deeper trend is that every supplier, every route, and every platform is being assessed for geopolitical reliability. This isn’t just a procurement issue -- it’s a strategy issue.

Your firm also focuses on AI governance. What does AI have to do with geopolitics?

Everything. AI is not just a technological domain -- it is an emerging regulatory and political space. Regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act or the U.S. Executive Order on AI are deeply geopolitical. They reflect competing visions of control, security, and ethics. Meanwhile, export restrictions on advanced chips or concerns over surveillance infrastructure are being negotiated not just in boardrooms, but in foreign ministries. For companies, this means that deploying AI tools (or even building AI partnerships) now comes with geopolitical consequences. We help clients understand where AI governance intersects with trade rules, reputational risk, and long-term positioning. Ignoring the political context of AI today is as dangerous as ignoring financial regulation a decade ago.

Can you give an example of how companies misjudge these risks?

Certainly. One example is when companies treat sanctions and export controls as purely legal checklists. This creates a false sense of security. In reality, what matters just as much is timing, perception, and informal enforcement. Political signals (f.x., who’s on a watchlist, what narratives are gaining traction, which institutions are shifting tone) often matter more than written law. Another common misjudgment is underestimating narrative risk: a company might be legally compliant, but still be seen as politically exposed or tone-deaf. This can affect contracts, financing, or access to partnerships. At Boldozer, we help companies look beyond compliance and see the full landscape: legal, political, and symbolic.

What role does compliance play in this broader environment?

Compliance used to be a back-office function. Now it’s a strategic asset -- if used well. It is the early warning system, the translator of regulatory shifts, the bridge between legal safety and operational agility. But it needs to be empowered and politically literate. Businesses can no longer afford a narrow view of compliance. They need teams and advisors who understand how rules emerge, how enforcement varies across jurisdictions, and how law interacts with power. We designed our products to support compliance officers in reframing their role: from ‘keeping us out of trouble’ to ‘helping us navigate exposure with foresight.’

How does Boldozer Consulting support companies in this space?

We act as a strategic advisory partner for leadership, legal, and compliance teams. Our role is to bring coherence and visibility into environments where information is partial, rules are in motion, and decisions carry reputational or legal risk. We don’t deliver long reports that gather dust. We deliver strategic briefs, discreet advisory, and actionable insights that support real decisions, especially in sensitive contexts.

What kinds of clients do you typically work with?

We focus on companies that operate in high-stakes environments: industries like energy, shipping, commodity trading, and B2B services in sensitive jurisdictions. Many of them are compliance-intensive by nature. They face cross-border obligations, licensing challenges, and reputation-sensitive negotiations. These firms often don’t need more data: what they need is clarity, foresight, and a partner who is able to understands the strategic, political, and regulatory context in which they operate – and translate it in a short actionable brief.

What makes your approach different from other advisory firms or consultancies?

We’re not a communications agency, and we’re not a law firm, we are not a think tank either. We sit in the gap where those perspectives meet — but where many firms hesitate to go. We understand that the biggest risks today are not only technical or legal: they’re systemic and often politically driven. Our method is interdisciplinary, discreet, and tailored. We don’t apply frameworks -- we design them around real exposure and internal dynamics. We also don’t talk down to clients. We assume they know what they’re doing—and that they just need the right partner to inform their decision about new emerging constraints.

What would you say to business leaders trying to make sense of this geopolitical moment?

Don’t wait for clarity or stability — it won’t come. We’ve left the post–Cold War playbook behind. What we’re facing now is a period of sustained uncertainty, contested rules, and politicized markets. That’s not a temporary crisis: it’s a new operating reality. So the question is: do you want to react late (and eventually go out of business) or shape your position early? The businesses that will endure are those that treat strategy as more than planning: they will equally apply interpretation. In that sense, we’re all back in the Middle Ages. And in that world, every serious enterprise needs its own Machiavelli. Even better if he is a she.