The EWS Live Briefing from December 2, 2025 | Dual Use as an Economic Strategy: Why Europe's Infrastructure Needs to Be Reinvented

Security without reserves is an illusion – and Europe is economically up against the wall.

The EWS Live Briefing in early December 2025 marks more than just another round of security policy discussions in Brussels. It reflects a shift in European thinking: away from the notion that security can be primarily organized diplomatically, and towards a sober assessment of infrastructure, logistics, and industrial base as crucial strategic resources.

The EWS Live Briefing is a digital briefing for senators of the European Economic Senate (EWS). It is a monthly live video talk.

The EWS Live Briefing takes place every first Tuesday of the month at 5:00 PM in a virtual space. The event is chaired by Dr. Ingo Friedrich, President of the European Economic Senate.

The briefing focuses on current European issues and follows a structured format:

• Guest lecture from politics and business
• Discussion round following the lecture
• General exchange between participants

The event is aimed at senators and members of the European Economic Senate who wish to exchange ideas on European issues and receive information from leading experts in politics and business.

The format thus combines information, discussion and networking on relevant European topics in a virtual setting.

The European Economic Senate format brings together leaders from business and politics in a structured, digitally organized exchange. This constellation is remarkable from an economic policy perspective: it is not a classic security policy conference, but a business-oriented forum in which security is discussed not as a cost factor, but as an integral part of location quality and competitiveness.

With Markus Becker as a guest speaker, a representative was present who credibly combines both worlds: industrial automation and logistics on the one hand, and military operational and staff experience on the other. This dual perspective is central to understanding the topic. Dual use is not a peripheral technical aspect, but rather the translation of security requirements into marketable, scalable business models – and conversely, the translation of business logic into robust, crisis-proof infrastructures.

The concepts discussed in this context – automated, high-density logistics hubs, military mobility along European corridors, integrated financing of civilian and military applications, and the systematic involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – form a toolkit with which Europe's economic and security policy capabilities can be redefined. The starting point for this is a thorough analysis of the failures of recent decades.

Suitable for:

• The integration of advanced terminal systems into a dual-use framework for civil and military heavy-lift logistics

From the peace dividend to risk economics: Europe's structural misincentives

For years, Europe has relied on a combination of globalization, just-in-time logistics, and political détente. Stockpiles were reduced, industrial buffers scaled back, and critical infrastructure streamlined for efficiency. This applied to military depots as well as civilian supply systems, from medicines and energy to spare parts.

From an economic perspective, this was initially rational: Capital tied up in inventories is considered unproductive in classical financial models, fixed costs in reserve capacities squeeze margins, and global supply chains promised economies of scale and cost advantages. The "peace dividend" consisted not only of a reduction in defense spending, but also of an implicit abandonment of redundancy in value chains.

This logic came under massive pressure, at the latest with the pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Suddenly it became clear that while saving on stockpiles and buffers had improved the balance sheet in the short term, it had created significant long-term economic risks. Shortages of masks and medications, delayed deliveries of components, energy price shocks, and transportation bottlenecks made it clear: An economy that thins its physical base may temporarily gain efficiency, but pays the price with increasing systemic fragility.

Economically, this can be described as a shift in the relationship between efficiency and resilience. While in the 1990s and 2000s, efficiency gains per additional redundancy saved seemed substantial, the situation has reversed: The marginal costs of further efficiency improvements are rising, while the marginal benefits of additional resilience are increasing. In a world of constant shocks—whether geopolitical, climatic, or technological—a purely cost-oriented infrastructure policy is no longer viable.

This is precisely where the dual-use perspective comes in: It attempts to resolve the supposed zero-sum game between efficiency and security by ensuring that the same investments deliver both economic performance in everyday life and strategic capability in times of crisis.

Economic logic of resilience: inventories, redundancies and buffers as productive investments

The central economic question is: How can higher resilience requirements be translated into infrastructure and logistics in such a way that they do not act as mere cost blocks, but generate lasting added value?

Traditionally, resilience was primarily associated with stockpiles and redundancy – that is, with additional materials, additional capacity, and, from a business perspective, superfluous "heaviness." Historically, military depots, civil defense warehouses, or reserve power plants were typically purely standby structures that tied up capital for decades without generating any returns in normal business operations.

In contrast, the dual-use approach describes a different financing and operational logic: infrastructure is designed to function as a productive part of the value chain during normal operation – as a logistics hub, energy buffer, distribution center or reserve capacity for critical industries – and to change its role in the event of a crisis or defense, without requiring a separate, exclusively military structure.

From an economic perspective, several effects arise:

1. Depreciation on infrastructure can largely be borne by the private sector because the facilities are in constant use.
2. The opportunity costs of maintaining militarily usable capacities decrease because their civilian use generates independent cash flows.
3. Economic welfare increases because the same physical and technical resources realize multiple benefits: security of supply, resilience to crises, competitiveness, local employment, and military capability.
4. Politically and fiscally, necessary investments are easier to justify because they do not have to be booked exclusively in defense budgets, but can also be anchored in infrastructure and industrial policy.

In this model, resilience is no longer a passive insurance policy, but becomes an active, revenue-generating component of business models. This changes the incentive structure for companies: those who invest in dual-use infrastructure open up new markets (for example, in the areas of disaster relief, energy storage, and critical infrastructure) and simultaneously position themselves as partners for public sector clients with a security policy focus.

Dual-use logistics hubs: High-density hubs as the core of physical sovereignty

The EWS briefing focused on the concept of highly automated, dual-use logistics hubs. These hubs differ fundamentally from traditional warehouses or transshipment points: they combine extreme space efficiency, high throughput, digital transparency, and scalable security standards.

From an economic perspective, such hubs fulfill several functions simultaneously:

They serve as physical buffers along key supply chains. In a just-in-time world, material flows were tightly scheduled to reduce warehousing costs. Strategic hubs allow for the deliberate reintroduction of buffers without significantly impacting productivity. On the contrary, automation and digital inventory management enable more precise control of stock levels, minimizing losses and obsolescence, and diversifying procurement risks.

They serve as a flexibility reserve for peak loads – in both the civilian and military sectors. In peacetime, they can cushion seasonal peaks in trade, industry, or humanitarian logistics. In a crisis, these same capacities can be quickly reconfigured for military supply tasks or civil disaster relief.

They increase the attractiveness of entire regions as business locations. Companies locate where they can expect fast, reliable, and cost-efficient logistics. A dense network of such hubs along European transport corridors strengthens not only security of supply but also industrial competitiveness.

They enable new business models in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Container-based battery storage, modular energy infrastructure, reserve capacities for critical industries – all of this can be integrated into the same physical structures that can also be used to store military goods or disaster relief equipment.

Technically, the current state of automation allows for high-density logistics operations in relatively small areas. This limits land use, which is politically and ecologically relevant. Underground or partially submerged facilities, such as those used for civil defense in Switzerland and other Alpine regions for decades, can serve as a model – albeit with a different basic economic design: instead of isolated, purely storage bunkers, highly integrated, digitally networked hubs that, in normal operation, form the backbone of modern supply chains.

From an economic perspective, the crucial point here is that while such infrastructures are capital-intensive, their potential revenue streams are diverse. By intelligently structuring the cash flow architecture, companies can combine long-term, stable income from logistics services, energy storage, industrial supply, and – with appropriate contractual arrangements – defense and civil protection services.

Military mobility and European corridors: When deterrence is decided over timetable robustness

A key aspect of the discussion is the question of how quickly military units can be deployed across the continent. The war in Ukraine has shown that deterrence in Europe today is determined less by abstract military figures than by concrete deployment capabilities. The ability to bring substantial forces to the eastern flank within a few days directly influences the political calculations of potential aggressors.

Economically, this question is closely linked to the efficiency of the civilian transport network. Rail networks, road corridors, bridge load capacities, tunnel profiles, port and terminal infrastructure – all of this is primarily economically relevant for freight and passenger transport in peacetime. However, in an emergency, these same routes determine whether heavy vehicles arrive on time and in sufficient numbers.

In this context, dual-use logic means:

A European network of rail corridors, road routes, and port connections, upgraded to handle heavy military loads, would simultaneously create efficiency gains for heavy civilian freight transport. Bottlenecks, weight restrictions, and capacity constraints that currently drive up transport costs would be eliminated as a result of military mobility investments.

Digitized coordination platforms that can prioritize and synchronize military transport across borders can be used in a modified form for civilian freight transport – for example, for better slot control at terminals, for dynamic route planning, or for capacity optimization.

Time savings, which in a crisis can mean the difference between days or weeks, are equally valuable in civilian operations: They reduce turnaround times, tied-up capital in inventory, and indirect costs due to delays. What applies to transporting tanks also applies to a time-critical container train carrying spare parts or food.

The simulations mentioned in the EWS briefing, which showed that deployment times to NATO's eastern flank could be reduced from several weeks to about one week, illustrate the magnitude of potential efficiency gains. This time saving is not only militarily relevant, but also economically, because the same infrastructure is used daily for billions of dollars' worth of goods.

The downside: The current fragmentation of European approval and standard regulations leads to enormous delays and transaction costs. Differing technical standards, divergent safety regulations, complex approval procedures, and a lack of data interoperability hinder both military and civilian logistics. Dual-use investments can only reach their full potential if they are linked to consistent regulatory harmonization.

SMEs and start-ups: The underestimated lever of strategic innovation capability

A particularly critical point of the briefing was the examination of the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe's security and defense ecosystem. A large proportion of technological innovation – for example, in sensor technology, robotics, software, materials engineering, or data analysis – originates from SMEs and start-ups. At the same time, a few large systems integrators dominate public perception and procurement practices.

Economically, this situation leads to a paradox: While the depth of value creation and innovative strength lie strongly in the breadth of the company's product range, the interfaces with large government clients are often too narrow and too complex. Small companies fail due to long tender deadlines, complex certifications, or opaque procurement procedures. Their technology matures in civilian markets or migrates to non-European ecosystems instead of being integrated into European security architectures.

This is particularly problematic for dual-use infrastructures because their performance depends significantly on software, data integration, automation, and high-tech niche expertise – precisely the areas where medium-sized businesses excel. Automated warehouse technology, digital twins, AI-supported inventory optimization, safety-critical control software, and cyber resilience solutions are often not developed by large defense contractors, but rather by highly specialized technology companies.

An economically rational dual-use strategy would therefore have to:

• Design procurement processes in such a way that modular, interoperable building blocks from small and medium-sized enterprises can be more easily integrated.
• Create certification and testing environments where new solutions can be qualified pragmatically, yet safely and verifiably, for military and critical infrastructure applications.
• Provide financing instruments that explicitly target dual-use technology companies without restricting them to purely military markets – for example, through venture funds, guarantees, or special credit lines.
• Strengthen clusters and networks in which medium-sized businesses, large system houses, research institutes and security authorities work together on scalable solutions instead of developing individual solutions in parallel.

Otherwise, Europe risks that while its technological base remains innovative, it structurally lacks sufficient leverage on its own security capabilities and infrastructure development – ​​and thus also on its geo-economic negotiating power.

Standardization and regulation: The invisible price of slowness

Another often underestimated economic factor is norms and standards. In the area of ​​dual-use technology, several levels converge: NATO standards, EU regulations, national regulations, and civilian industrial standards. Each of these levels is justifiable in itself, but their combination creates a high coordination effort.

For companies, this means:

• Longer time-to-market for new products because several certification and conformity processes have to be completed in parallel.
• Increased fixed costs because in-house compliance and engineering resources are permanently occupied with standards harmonization and documentation.
• Investment risks arise because it is unclear whether a chosen technical solution will later meet the requirements of different markets or clients.

Particularly in the logistics and infrastructure sectors, this leads to enormous economic inefficiencies. A dual-use port, terminal, or bridge must meet both civil safety standards and military load and profile requirements. If these requirements are only reconciled late in the process, replanning, cost increases, and delays are likely – and in the worst case, misinvestments.

From a macroeconomic perspective, this is not just an administrative problem, but a question of capital allocation. The longer and more uncertain the planning and approval phases, the higher the risk premiums investors demand. This makes projects, which are already capital-intensive, more expensive. For Europe, which simultaneously has to manage the energy transition, digitalization, and defense capabilities, this is a strategic competitive disadvantage.

A stringent dual-use strategy therefore also implies an innovation-oriented standards policy:

• Technical requirements should be coordinated early on with the involvement of military, civilian and industrial stakeholders, instead of being layered sequentially on top of each other.
• Certification procedures must be accelerated and, where possible, mutually recognized without lowering safety standards.
• Digital standards – for example for data formats, interfaces, security protocols – should be set in such a way that modular innovations can easily be integrated, instead of cementing proprietary silos.

The key economic message: Speed ​​is crucial not only for security policy but also financially. Every year of delay in a large-scale infrastructure project means lost productivity gains, higher financing costs, and, in the dual-use sector, a prolonged period of strategic vulnerability.

Hub for security and defense - Image: Xpert.digital

The hub for security and defense offers well-founded advice and current information in order to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defense policy. In close connection to the SME Connect working group, he promotes small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) in particular that want to further expand their innovative strength and competitiveness in the field of defense. As a central point of contact, the hub creates a decisive bridge between SME and European defense strategy.

Suitable for:

• The Working Group Defense of the SME Connect - Strengthening SMEs in European defense

Financing and business models: Dual use as a new infrastructure asset class

Dual-use logistics hubs, upgraded mobility corridors, integrated energy and supply infrastructure – all of this requires enormous investments. The modernization and reinforcement of selected European transport routes alone, along with warehousing and terminal infrastructure and associated digital platforms, quickly add up to tens or even hundreds of billions of euros.

Suitable for:

• Integration of high-bay warehouses into a trimodal dual-use logistics network – Trimodal and digital: A synergistic model

The classic question is: Who pays?

Financing solely through defense budgets is politically unfeasible and economically inefficient because it underestimates the civilian benefits of this infrastructure. Conversely, financing solely through private logistics or infrastructure providers fails to recognize the public good nature of resilience and security. A hybrid financing architecture is needed that also financially reflects this dual-use nature.

Possible elements of this architecture

Long-term usage agreements with public sector clients, in which specific capacities or functions for disaster relief, strategic reserves, or military use are contractually secured. These agreements generate predictable cash flows and can serve as a basis for infrastructure financing.

Investments from pension funds, insurance companies and infrastructure investors who are interested in predictable, long-term stable returns and at the same time want to invest in assets that contribute to resilience and sustainability.

Targeted funding instruments that reflect the added value in terms of security policy – ​​for example in the form of low-interest loans, guarantees or grants for the “resilience component” of a project, while the majority of the financing is market-based.

Specialized public-private partnership models in which government agencies provide land, regulatory privileges or basic infrastructure, while private operators are responsible for technology, operation and innovation.

The challenge lies less in financing than in the clarity of roles and risk distribution. Markets are generally willing to invest in mature, regulatory-backed infrastructure projects – especially in a low-interest-rate environment where reliable, physically backed cash flows are in demand. What has held many projects back so far is not a lack of capital, but rather the ambiguity of the business models: unclear responsibilities between civilian and military users, insufficiently defined performance commitments in the event of a crisis, and a lack of standardized contract models.

Dual use can act as a catalyst here if it is possible to translate typical infrastructure logic (long operating times, stable use) with security policy requirements (redundancy, prioritization in case of emergency, protection of classified information) into standardized contract and operator models.

Switzerland as a case study: Civil defense, strategic reserves and multifunctional underground infrastructure

Switzerland offers a particularly vivid reference model for physical resilience. For decades, the country has consistently invested in civil protection infrastructure and mandatory stockpiles – creating structures that are equally usable for civilian and security-related purposes long before the current dual-use debate.

Underground shelters and bunkers were designed to serve primarily as storage, archive, or specialized spaces during normal operation, but to be quickly converted into shelters for the population or government facilities when needed. A similar principle applies to the legally mandated reserves of food, energy, and basic materials, which are held by private companies but regulated by the government and made available in times of crisis.

Economically, this is remarkable because it demonstrates that physical security architectures are indeed compatible with market economy principles. Mandatory stockpiles are managed and accounted for by the private sector, the infrastructure is often privately built and used, and the state merely sets the framework, defines minimum quantities and access rights, and, if necessary, compensates for additional costs or losses in the event of crisis levies.

Applied to the European level and to modern, automated logistics hubs, this means:

• Government agencies do not need to operate all infrastructure themselves to have access in an emergency. Contractual agreements, clearly defined priority rights, and transparent compensation mechanisms are sufficient to ensure strategic availability.
• Underground or specially protected storage infrastructures can enable highly profitable uses in normal operation – such as data centers, valuables storage facilities, special archives or high-security logistics – as long as their functionalities required in a crisis are considered and regularly tested.
• Mandatory or incentivized stockpiling of defined product groups – medicine, energy, critical raw materials, essential foodstuffs – can be integrated into modern, digital logistics systems without necessarily creating massive inefficiencies. Modern inventory management, rotation principles, and precise demand forecasts reduce depreciation and obsolescence risks.

Europe cannot simply copy this model; political culture, size, and heterogeneity are different. But it shows that resilience does not necessarily mean untapped costs cast in concrete, but can be intelligently embedded – spatially, legally, and economically.

Geoeconomic dimension: Dual use as a response to dependencies in energy, raw materials and technologies

Dual-use infrastructure is not only relevant in a narrow military sense. It is also a tool for reducing geoeconomic vulnerabilities. Europe is heavily dependent on imports in key areas – energy, critical raw materials, digital platforms, and certain technologies – and therefore vulnerable to supply disruptions, price shocks, or politically motivated restrictions.

From this perspective, several levels can be distinguished:

energy

Storage infrastructures, flexible grids, and modular reserve capacities that serve both civilian and military needs increase the ability to absorb short-term shocks. Container-based battery storage, modular gas-fired power plants, transnational grid interconnections, and flexible load management are key components in this context. When designed to prioritize the supply of critical infrastructure, military sites, or disaster relief systems, these systems offer dual benefits.

Raw materials

Storage and handling logistics for critical materials – such as batteries, electronics, specialty steels, or rare metals – can be designed to ensure that strategic stockpiles are geographically diversified and physically protected. Automated high-security warehouses in logistically well-connected regions form the basis for an actively managed inventory policy that pursues not only economic but also security policy objectives.

technology

Data infrastructure, cloud capacities, data centers, and communication networks have long been critically important for dual-use purposes. Physically protected and redundantly connected data centers serve as commercial IT infrastructure in everyday use, but in times of crisis, they safeguard governmental leadership, financial systems, and critical services. Here, too, the principle applies: economic viability stems from civilian use, while added security policy value arises from resilient architecture and governance.

In this geo-economic interpretation, dual use becomes a mechanism by which Europe can reduce its vulnerability to external shocks without isolating itself from international trade. It is not about autarky, but about the ability to bridge critical phases, develop alternatives, and make political decisions without having to do so under acute blackmail pressure.

Scenarios up to 2035: Between orderly transformation and forced improvisation

To grasp the scope of the approaches discussed, it is worthwhile to look at possible development paths up to 2035. Three simplified scenarios illustrate the range:

Scenario 1: Muddling through with "business as usual"

Europe invests selectively in defense and infrastructure, but without a clear dual-use strategy. Funds are spread across many small projects, standards remain fragmented, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups are not given a systematic role, and financing models remain conservatively segregated by sector.

In this scenario, defense spending increases without a corresponding increase in structural capability. Logistics remain vulnerable, infrastructure modernization lags behind, and in a crisis, improvisation is necessary – resulting in high economic costs and political embarrassment. Dependence on non-European technology and security guarantees remains high.

Scenario 2: Reactive upgrade without infrastructure reform

Triggered by a worsening security situation, European states are massively increasing their defense spending, procuring additional equipment, and reinforcing troops, but continue to neglect the supporting logistics, infrastructure, and industrial base. Dual-use concepts are discussed rhetorically, but not consistently implemented.

Economically, this leads to sharply rising defense spending, financed through tax increases, redistribution from other budget areas, or higher debt – without simultaneously strengthening the productivity base through more efficient logistics and infrastructure. The burden on national economies increases without generating corresponding growth impulses. Politically, skepticism towards "arms programs" is growing because their economic benefits are not apparent.

Scenario 3: Strategic Dual-Use Transformation

Europe is combining infrastructure, industrial, and security policies in a coherent dual-use approach. Military mobility requirements are becoming an integral part of European transport planning, automated logistics hubs are being strategically built along key corridors, SMEs and start-ups are being integrated through tailored funding and procurement instruments, and norms and standards are being harmonized at an early stage.

In this scenario, investments flow into physical infrastructure, increasing both the productivity of the civilian economy and military operational capability. Logistics costs decrease, supply chains become more robust, and new markets for resilience solutions emerge. Defense spending is partially "cross-subsidized" through productivity-enhancing side effects. Politically, such a strategy can be sold as both a growth and security program—provided that the governance structures are transparent and the distribution of burdens is comprehensible.

Realistically, the future will lie somewhere between these scenarios. The crucial factor is the extent to which Europe is prepared to create the structural prerequisites for Scenario 3 – in particular, the willingness to overcome departmental boundaries, break regulatory path dependencies, and coordinate large-scale private and public investments.

Implications for politics, industry and SMEs: From project thinking to system architecture

The economic analysis yields several guidelines for actors in politics and business.

For governments and European institutions

• Dual-use infrastructure must be anchored as an independent category in budget and investment planning, not as a byproduct of defense or transport policy.
• Planning and approval procedures should be accelerated for projects with a clearly defined dual-use character and bundled in special corridors in order to achieve economies of scale and send signals to markets.
• Standards and norms policy should be understood as a strategic instrument of security and industrial policy, not as a purely technical administrative field.
• SME and innovation policy should explicitly address dual-use potentials, for example through programs that strengthen the interfaces between civilian high-tech markets and security applications.

For large companies in logistics, industry and infrastructure

• Dual use opens up new business models based on existing competencies. Companies that are currently terminal operators, energy suppliers, or logistics service providers can evolve into operators of critical, security-relevant infrastructure – with corresponding opportunities, but also responsibilities.
• Investments in automation, digitization and data transparency pay off twice: They increase efficiency in day-to-day operations and are a prerequisite for managing complex crisis scenarios.
• The ability to establish long-term, reliable, and transparent partnerships with government agencies is becoming a key competitive factor. Companies that develop expertise in this area early on will be preferred partners for major projects.

For medium-sized businesses and start-ups

• Dual use is not an invitation to "arms dependency", but rather access to additional markets for technologies that are needed in civilian applications anyway – from AI and robotics to cybersecurity and data analysis.
• Companies that design their solutions from the outset with security and resilience requirements in mind gain an advantage in tenders and partnerships – even without focusing exclusively on military customers.
• Collaborations within ecosystems – with large system integrators, research institutions, and public sector clients – are more important than attempting to deliver complete solutions in isolation. Dual-use structures are inherently modular and multifaceted.

For all stakeholders, dual-use is not a technical detail, but a governance issue. Who decides on priorities in a crisis? How are access rights and compensation regulated? How are data protection, security of classified information, and economic use reconciled? The answers to these questions determine whether dual-use is accepted as a productive concept or perceived as disguised militarization.

Infrastructure as a resource of power – between efficiency and capacity to act

The central idea of ​​the EWS briefing can be clearly formulated in economic policy terms: In Europe, infrastructure must no longer be viewed solely from a cost perspective and in terms of efficiency indicators. It is a resource of power that determines the ability to react to shocks, to make autonomous political decisions, and not to have to improvise in an emergency.

Dual-use technology offers a viable solution because it dissolves the traditional separation between "civilian economy" and "military security" and replaces it with an integrated system in which the same physical and digital structures serve multiple purposes. Economically, this means that investments in security are partially recouped through ongoing value creation, while investments in efficiency simultaneously increase resilience.

Europe faces a choice: whether to pursue this path actively, in a coordinated and forward-looking manner – or to make ad hoc adjustments in response to each crisis, incurring high costs, political tensions, and increasing dependence on external actors. Time windows are narrowing, the geopolitical situation is becoming more unpredictable, and investment needs are competing with other major projects such as the energy transition and digitalization.

From an economic perspective, there are many arguments for treating dual-use technology not as a niche topic for defense experts, but as a core issue of European location policy. Anyone rethinking infrastructure is thinking not just in terms of railways, bridges, and warehouses, but in terms of operational capability. And anyone who wants to ensure operational capability must be prepared to break the dogma of maximum short-term efficiency.

The provocative, yet realistic, conclusion is this: In a world of permanent uncertainty, the ash-gray warehouse on the city's outskirts is sometimes more politically valuable than the next glass-walled office building. And Europe's economic prosperity in the coming years will be measured less by the leanness of its supply chains and more by how well they withstand shocks without tearing the system apart. Dual-use logistics hubs, robust mobility corridors, and a deliberately designed resilience architecture are not peripheral options—they are the new core.

Markus Becker

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group

LinkedIn

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

contact me under Wolfenstein ∂ Xpert.digital

call me under +49 89 674 804 (Munich)

LinkedIn
 

Dual -use logistics expert - Image: Xpert.digital

The global economy is currently experiencing a fundamental change, a broken epoch that shakes the cornerstones of global logistics. The era of hyper-globalization, which was characterized by the unshakable striving for maximum efficiency and the “just-in-time” principle, gives way to a new reality. This is characterized by profound structural breaks, geopolitical shifts and progressive economic political fragmentation. The planning of international markets and supply chains, which was once assumed as a matter of course, dissolves and is replaced by a phase of growing uncertainty.

Suitable for:

• Strategic resilience in a fragmented world through intelligent infrastructure and automation - The requirements profile of the dual-use logistics expert

Our global industry and business expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations