Global trade reached a record level in 2026 according to the DHL Globalization Tracker, even as armed conflicts, tariffs, and rivalries between major powers multiply. This paradox summarizes the difficulty in interpreting current geopolitical stakes: the analytical frameworks inherited from the Cold War or the triumphant globalization of the 1990s are no longer sufficient to describe a world where fragmentation and interdependence coexist.
Geopolitical Tensions and Global Trade: A Fracture That Is Not One
The dominant narrative opposes two emerging blocs, one around the United States and the other around China. The available data tells a different story. The DHL Globalization Tracker, published on October 9, 2026, shows that U.S. allies have maintained their economic relations with China. The reconfiguration resembles more a diversification of dependencies than a complete separation.
Companies confirm this trend. The EY-Parthenon Geostrategy in Practice 2026 study, published on September 22, 2026, indicates that more than nine out of ten companies are pursuing an international growth strategy. The reorganizations focus on supply chains and risk management, not on withdrawing from foreign markets.
This gap between political discourse and economic reality complicates the understanding of stakes for decision-makers. The coverage of international news provided by Geopolitis helps to track these intersecting dynamics, where announcements of breakups coexist with rising trade flows.
The tensions between decoupling rhetoric and diversification practices remain the defining feature of the period.
Artificial Intelligence and Infrastructure: The New Ground for State Rivalry
The technological competition among major powers is no longer limited to the race for algorithms or patents. The Geopolitical Risk Brief from S&P Global, published in September 2026, shifts the focus to a material angle often overlooked.
The competition for data centers revolves around electricity, water, and networks, not just computing power. Building a large-scale data center requires considerable energy capabilities, access to water for cooling, a skilled workforce, and a stable regulatory framework.
This infrastructural dimension transforms the map of power relations. Countries with abundant energy resources or flexible regulatory capacities become strategic players in the AI race, regardless of their weight in fundamental research. In contrast, states facing energy shortages or strict environmental constraints find themselves disadvantaged in this specific area.
Europe illustrates this tension. The ambition for European digital autonomy faces concrete bottlenecks: energy prices, slow authorization procedures, regulatory fragmentation among member countries. Field reports diverge on the actual capacity of the European Union to catch up in deploying large-scale AI infrastructures.
Geopolitical Risk and Business Strategy: Between Adaptation and Exposure
Geopolitical uncertainty is now among the major concerns of businesses, a shift in mindset compared to the previous decade, when cyber and climate risks dominated the rankings.
Companies do not all react the same way to these uncertainties. Several strategies coexist:
- Geographical diversification of suppliers, which involves multiplying sources of supply to reduce dependence on a country or region. This approach increases logistical costs but limits exposure to localized shocks.
- Nearshoring or friendshoring, which favors partners located in allied or geographically close countries. The available data does not allow for a conclusion that this trend has already altered the overall structure of trade.
- Integrating geopolitical risk into governance, with the creation of positions dedicated to analyzing political threats within strategic management. The EY-Parthenon study notes that this practice is becoming widespread among large companies.
Companies that adapt do so without renouncing their international presence. The dominant strategy remains diversification, not withdrawal.
War in Ukraine and Russia: The Limits of a Binary Reading of the Conflict
The war in Ukraine remains the most structuring armed conflict for European politics and international relations. Its impact far exceeds the military theater: energy markets, defense alliances, migration flows, reconfiguration of diplomatic partnerships in Africa and Asia.
Russia has partially redirected its hydrocarbon exports to Asia, but the economic consequences of sanctions remain difficult to measure accurately. Public data on the Russian economy has become less reliable since 2022, limiting the scope of quantitative analyses.
For Europe, the conflict has accelerated long-postponed decisions: increased defense budgets, energy diversification, revision of migration policies. These movements do not follow a coordinated logic at the European Union level. Each country balances its budgetary constraints, economic interests, and geographical position relative to Russia.
The rise of what analysts call “middle powers” (Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil) adds a layer of complexity. These countries refuse to align with one camp and exploit their pivot position to negotiate bilateral advantages. This dynamic makes geopolitical forecasts even more uncertain.
The era of geopolitical uncertainty is not characterized by a sudden shift to a new world order, but by the overlay of contradictory logics: record trade and military tensions, technological race and infrastructural fragilities, rupture rhetoric and continuity practices. Understanding these stakes requires abandoning simple frameworks and accepting that multiple opposing trends coexist without resolution.
