Viktoria Zakrevskaya on geopolitical risks and changing roles in global business

Geopolitics has become a key topic for businesses in recent years. The strategic assumptions that companies have relied on for the past three decades are no longer relevant. Legal certainty, market openness and political stability have virtually ceased to exist.

In an exclusive interview with SiGMA News, Viktoria Zakrevskaya – lecturer at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland and founder of Boldozer Consulting – spoke about the transition to legal uncertainty and how companies can cope with geopolitical risks in this new context. In addition to gambling, she consults in various industries, which gives her a global perspective on interconnections.

Q: What exactly changed after 2022? 

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operated under for the past three decades – around legal certainty, market openness, and political stability – are no longer valid.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 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, weaponised interdependence, and the collapse of multilateral norms. Sanctions became a daily operational concern – and not just for legal teams, but for traders, suppliers, and 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.’ But the country-risk model, built into many corporate compliance frameworks, is outdated.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 categorised 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 optimised 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.

Q: 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.

One example of how companies misjudge these risks 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 – for example, 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. It’s essential for companies to look beyond compliance and see the full landscape: legal, political, and symbolic.

Q: 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. An interdisciplinary, custom-fit, and politically attuned approach is what sets the compliance team apart.

Q: 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 politicised 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.

This article was first published on 21 August 2025.

Read full version of this interview at SiGMA News.