World order in free fall: The explosive balance sheet of this week from January 19th to 23rd, 2026

When free trade dreams meet protectionist realities

The third week of January 2026 revealed with rare clarity the fault lines of a world order in flux. While the global elite debated cooperation in Davos, Switzerland, the events of those five days painted a picture of increasing geopolitical fragmentation, economic insecurity, and humanitarian crises. Beyond the ever-present media focus on Davos, 19 key developments across five continents demonstrated that the post-Cold War order is not only eroding but is being actively dismantled.

• Greenland crisis & tariff shock: Trump and the NATO alliance
• China's 5 Percent Illusion: Why the Economic Giant Is Really Wobbling
• Nuclear turnaround after Fukushima: Japan restarts the world's largest nuclear power plant
• US special forces in Caracas: The violent overthrow of Nicolás Maduro
• Deadly infrastructure: What connects the disasters in Spain and Pakistan

The transatlantic paradox: EU-Mercosur and the Greenland blackmail

On January 17, 2026, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed the free trade agreement between the European Union and the South American Mercosur countries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay in Asunción, the capital of Paraguay. After a quarter of a century of negotiations, this moment marked a historic breakthrough: The agreement creates a free trade area encompassing 780 million people and eliminates tariffs on 93 percent of all traded goods. European automotive, machinery, and chemical companies gain access to a market with considerable growth potential, while South American agricultural exporters gain better access to European consumers.

The economic logic seems compelling. With a projected trade volume of over €120 billion annually and expected welfare gains through comparative cost advantages, the agreement perfectly embodies the principles of classic free trade. Germany's export-oriented economy, which already achieved record surpluses in 2025, hopes for additional sales markets during a period of structural growth weakness. Italy's Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani spoke of enormous benefits for economic development, while even traditionally protectionist France remained isolated with its opposition.

But within 72 hours, geopolitical reality revealed the fragility of this trade offensive. On January 19, US President Donald Trump announced that he would impose massive tariffs on European countries if Denmark refused to cede Greenland to the United States. This unprecedented threat against NATO allies not only called into question fundamental principles of international law but also directly targeted the very substance of transatlantic economic relations. Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned unequivocally that an American attack on a NATO member would mean the end of the alliance and bring down the international order.

The paradox could hardly be sharper: While the EU is attempting to secure its global competitiveness and reduce its dependence on China through trade agreements, its most important security partner is threatening the economic foundation of this strategy. Trump's framework agreement with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the Greenland issue, announced in Davos on January 21, and the associated withdrawal of tariff threats, revealed the new methodology: Transactional diplomacy is replacing the rules-based order. The temporary de-escalation does not disguise the fundamental shift. Europe's trade strategy operates in an environment where even its closest allies consider economic blackmail a legitimate instrument of foreign policy.

China's Growth Illusions and the Limits of the Export Model

The Chinese economic data for the fourth quarter of 2025, released on January 19, illustrated the structural challenges facing the world's second-largest economy with remarkable clarity. Gross domestic product grew by only 4.5 percent year-on-year in the final quarter, the weakest increase in three years and significantly below the 4.8 percent figure for the third quarter. Domestic consumption was particularly alarming: Retail sales rose by just 0.9 percent in December, the slowest growth rate in three years, while fixed asset investment for the year as a whole shrank by 3.8 percent.

Nevertheless, China achieved its government target of 5.0 percent annual growth exactly. This apparent success, however, was based almost entirely on record exports. The trade surplus climbed to $1.2 trillion in 2025, fueled by aggressive price dumping and state-subsidized overproduction, particularly of electric vehicles, solar panels, and industrial machinery. The strategy worked as long as other markets absorbed these goods. But the vulnerability of this model became immediately apparent when Trump intensified protectionist rhetoric and threatened Europe with anti-dumping measures.

China's structural problems cannot be solved through export offensives. The real estate crisis, which began in 2021 with the collapse of Evergrande, continues unabated. Real estate investment plummeted by 17.2 percent in 2025, while deflationary pressures erode consumer confidence. The unemployment rate remained stagnant at 5.1 percent, although the actual rate of underemployment is significantly higher, particularly among university graduates. China's population shrank for the fourth consecutive year, further straining long-term demand.

Analysts at OCBC in Singapore noted that the growth outlook had not fundamentally improved. What was supporting the economy was the foreign sector with an undervalued currency, while domestic demand remained subdued. Saxo's chief strategist, Charu Chanana, warned that while China had reached 5 percent growth, it lacked broad support. The slowdown in the fourth quarter was a warning sign, suggesting that 2026 would begin with diminishing momentum rather than renewed dynamism. Reuters polls forecast growth of just 4.5 percent for 2026, with predominantly downside risks.

The economic policy implications are significant. China's leadership under President Xi Jinping announced a more proactive fiscal policy in December, but concrete measures remained vague. The central government is reluctant to significantly increase debt, while local governments are already groaning under mountains of debt. At the same time, the geopolitical environment is deteriorating. Trump's threat of 60 percent tariffs on Chinese goods and the accelerated decoupling of critical supply chains by Western industrialized nations are limiting the room for maneuver. The Chinese growth model, which has enabled four decades of prosperity gains, is reaching its systemic limits.

Infrastructure failure and natural disasters: The deadly toll of neglected resilience

Two disasters with a combined death toll of over 110 in the same week revealed the fatal consequences of systematic neglect of safety standards and climate adaptation. On the evening of January 18, two trains collided on the high-speed line between Madrid and Seville near the town of Adamuz. The private operator Iryo and the state-owned Renfe lost 45 people, and another 150 were injured, some seriously. Preliminary investigations indicated a broken rail at a weld, while train drivers on other lines had reported unevenness in the tracks. Spain's rail network operator Adif subsequently reduced the maximum speed on a section of the main Madrid-Barcelona line from 300 to 160 kilometers per hour.

The train crash raises fundamental questions about the liberalization of critical infrastructure. The Iryo train, a competitor of the famous AVE trains, was practically new, less than four years old. The tracks had recently been overhauled, as Transport Minister Oscar Puente emphasized. Nevertheless, the system failed. The collision marks the worst rail disaster since the Santiago de Compostela tragedy in 2013, when 79 people died due to excessive speed. While human error was the primary concern then, Adamuz points to systemic maintenance deficiencies. Spain has invested heavily in high-speed rail lines over the past two decades to promote economic development. The question is now being raised whether this expansion came at the expense of adequate quality assurance.

Just one day earlier, on January 17, a devastating fire broke out in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, at Gul Plaza, a shopping mall with 1,200 stores spread across 8,000 square meters. At least 67 people died, and 15 others are missing and presumed dead. The fire is believed to have started in an artificial flower shop where children were playing with matches. The disaster escalated because nearly all 16 emergency exits were locked, a common practice after 10 p.m. to prevent theft. Inadequate ventilation and blocked aisles prevented escape. Survivors described scenes of panic, dark smoke, and desperate attempts to break down doors.

Documents seen by Reuters showed that Gul Plaza had been violating building codes for over a decade. An assessment two years ago had classified the situation as critical. Karachi Urban Search and Rescue Teams documented deficiencies in several categories of fire safety in late 2023 and early 2024. Management systematically ignored these warnings. Firefighters arrived late, and according to witnesses, the first fire engine quickly ran out of water. Officials denied this account but could not explain why it took over 24 hours to bring the fire under control.

Both tragedies illustrate a global pattern: the pressure to minimize costs in liberalized markets clashes with the demands of safety and maintenance. In Spain, competition between private and public providers may have led to savings in infrastructure investment. In Pakistan, chronic underfunding of public regulatory bodies prevents the enforcement of existing standards. The result is avoidable disasters whose death toll far outweighs the economic gains of deregulation.

Climate crisis in concrete terms: South Africa's flood disaster and the cost of inaction

While diplomatic elites discussed sustainability goals in Davos, hundreds of thousands in southern Africa were fighting for their survival. Torrential rains since mid-December had plunged Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe into a state of emergency. By January 23, over 150 people had died, and an estimated 600,000 had been directly affected, the majority in Mozambique's Gaza province. In South Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a national emergency on January 18 after the provinces of Limpopo and Mpumalanga received approximately 400 millimeters of rain within a week.

The meteorological causes were clear: A tropical depression in the Mozambique Channel was intensified by unusually warm sea surface temperatures, while at the same time unprecedented rainfall inland caused rivers to burst their banks. The combined effect overwhelmed all infrastructure. In Mozambique, entire neighborhoods of Xai-Xai were flooded. One woman had to give birth on a rooftop as floodwaters engulfed her home. Dams in Zimbabwe and South Africa had to open their sluice gates, triggering additional flood waves downstream.

The humanitarian consequences were devastating. Over 1,000 houses in Limpopo were destroyed; Governor Phophi Ramathuba spoke of buildings that were literally washed away. In Zimbabwe, the national disaster management agency reported 70 deaths since the beginning of the year, over 1,000 destroyed houses, and damaged schools, roads, and bridges. For Mozambique, where 70 percent of the population lives off subsistence farming, the disaster came at the worst possible time. The January floods destroyed maize and rice crops just weeks before harvest. A famine is looming.

President Daniel Chapo canceled his participation in the World Economic Forum to coordinate the crisis response. South Africa's defense forces deployed search and rescue teams, including helicopters, to Mozambique. Nevertheless, international aid remained insufficient. The World Bank had ranked Mozambique as one of the ten countries most vulnerable to climate change in 2024, yet adaptation financing was marginal. The promised $100 billion in annual climate aid from wealthy nations to developing countries was never fully mobilized.

The economic costs far exceed the direct damage. Infrastructure that took decades to build lies in ruins. The main transport artery connecting Maputo to the rest of Mozambique has been partially destroyed. Supply chains are disrupted. Cholera outbreaks from contaminated water have already killed dozens. Reconstruction will cost billions, resources these countries do not possess. Southern Africa is experiencing in real time what climate models have been predicting for years: Increasing extreme weather events are overwhelming the adaptive capacity of poorer regions and causing humanitarian crises that trigger migration and exacerbate regional instability.

Technological self-sufficiency or nuclear return? Japan's energy dilemma

Late in the evening of January 21, at 7:02 p.m., operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings restarted reactor Unit 6 at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. This moment marked the first reactivation of a TEPCO reactor since the Fukushima disaster of March 2011, which killed over 18,000 people and shattered global confidence in nuclear power. With a total capacity of 8.2 gigawatts, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is the world's largest nuclear power plant. Once all seven reactors are back online, the plant could supply electricity to millions of homes and improve Japan's grid reserve margin by about two percentage points.

The decision to reactivate nuclear power was not driven by technological hubris, but by stark energy policy necessity. Japan imported almost all of its fossil fuels and paid record sums for liquefied natural gas, coal, and oil in 2025. The energy trade balance showed a deficit of over $80 billion. At the same time, the government committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 46 percent by 2030 compared to 2013. Renewable energy sources were growing, but by 2025 they only covered about 25 percent of electricity demand. The gap between climate targets and security of supply could only be bridged by nuclear power.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, in office since October 2026 and Japan's first female head of government, actively supports the construction of new reactors. Her government plans to partially fund them through a novel public financing initiative. Takaichi argues that energy security is national security, especially given geopolitical tensions with China and North Korea. US President Trump has called on Japan to increase defense spending, creating additional fiscal pressure. An expensive energy supply weakens the economic basis for rearmament.

But the reactivation was anything but smooth. The restart, originally scheduled for January 20, had to be postponed by a day after an alarm system failed during the start-up procedures. This underscored the continuing technical challenges after 15 years of inactivity. Furthermore, nuclear power faces considerable public opposition. A petition against the reactivation gathered 40,000 signatures, citing the seismic risk in the Niigata region. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is located in an earthquake-prone area. The memory of Fukushima is still fresh, even though TEPCO assures that it has implemented comprehensive safety upgrades.

The global dimension of Japan's dilemma is considerable. As the world's third-largest economy, Japan's energy policy influences international markets. Increased reliance on nuclear power could reduce demand for liquefied natural gas and dampen prices, benefiting European consumers. Conversely, Japan imports massive amounts of hard coal from Australia and Indonesia. Reducing these imports would affect those markets. In the long term, Japan's decision signals that even highly developed democracies with strong environmental sensitivities struggle to rapidly replace fossil fuels without resorting to nuclear power. The global energy transition faces structural bottlenecks that ideological debates alone cannot resolve.

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

Military escalation as the norm: Venezuela, Iran and the new intervention doctrine

The first foreign policy act of the second Trump administration was not a diplomatic initiative, but a military strike that violated international law. On the night of January 2-3, 2026, US forces launched Operation Absolute Resolve against Venezuela. Fighter jets and bombers suppressed air defense systems, while Delta Force units, using helicopters from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, invaded Caracas and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their compound in Fort Tiuna. More than 80 people died in the attacks, including 23 members of the Venezuelan military. Maduro was taken to New York and indicted in federal court on charges of drug trafficking and terrorism.

Trump justified the attack as a law enforcement measure with military support, for which the president possessed inherent constitutional authority. This interpretation ignores fundamental principles of international law. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, except in self-defense or with the authorization of the Security Council. Neither of these applied. Congress was not informed in advance, citing security concerns. Critics, including the Washington Office on Latin America, described the intervention as a violation of international law without a legitimate claim to self-defense.

The operation sent an unmistakable signal: The United States is prepared to use military force unilaterally to achieve domestic political goals, without regard for diplomatic norms. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted after the operation that if he were the leader of Iran, he would go to the mosque to pray. The implication was clear. Trump had already threatened on January 2 that the US would intervene if Iran violently killed peaceful protesters. On January 4, he warned that Iran would be hit very hard if security forces continued to kill protesters.

The protests in Iran, triggered by soaring prices and a currency that had plummeted to historic lows, have been ongoing since the end of December 2025. The US-based organization Iran Human Rights has verified 2,435 deaths among protesters and 153 government officials. On January 14, the US imposed sanctions on five Iranian officials, including the secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security, whom it accused of orchestrating the crackdown. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned in a video message that the US knew Iranian leaders were frantically transferring stolen funds to banks worldwide, like rats from a sinking ship. They would be prosecuted.

The parallel mobilization of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and escort ships toward the Middle East underscored the military component. Trump made it clear that all options were on the table. The rhetoric and troop deployment suggested that a scenario similar to Venezuela was also possible for Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Trump of encouraging terrorists to attack demonstrators and security forces and accused Washington of provoking foreign intervention.

The new intervention doctrine rests on three pillars: First, no prior consultation with Congress or allies. Second, reliance on vaguely defined inherent presidential powers. Third, communication primarily through social media, not diplomatic channels. This methodology systematically undermines multilateral institutions and established processes of crisis de-escalation. The consequences for international stability are significant. If the world's most powerful military intervenes unilaterally, what norm prevents other states from doing the same? Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine was condemned globally. China's potential military action against Taiwan would elicit similar reactions. Yet the American operation in Venezuela demonstrated that even established democracies are willing to disregard international law when it serves political interests.

Authoritarian consolidation and democratic decay: elections without a choice

Parliamentary elections, nominally democratic but in reality cementing authoritarian rule, took place on three continents during the third week of January. In Myanmar, the military junta held the second phase of its staggered elections on January 11. The Union Solidarity and Development Party, widely recognized as the military's civilian front, won 86 of the 100 available seats. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, which had achieved a landslide victory in 2020, was dissolved for refusing to register for the military elections. Numerous other anti-junta parties suffered the same fate.

The reported voter turnout of 52 percent in the first phase on December 28 was dubious. Independent observers were denied access. Armed opposition groups attacked polling stations and government buildings in several districts. Approximately 65 of the 330 townships were excluded from voting because the military lacked control there. Richard Horsey of the Crisis Group stated that the USDP was headed for a landslide victory, which was hardly surprising given its substantial advantages, including the elimination of serious competitors and anti-voting legislation.

The junta claimed the election enjoyed public support and was being conducted without coercion. Military spokesman Zaw Min Tun declared it was not only a victory for the government but also for the people, a milestone for those yearning for democracy and peace. This rhetoric stood in stark contrast to the reality of a country torn apart by violence since the February 2021 coup. Over 3.6 million people have been displaced, and thousands have been killed. Suu Kyi is in prison. The military promises to convene a parliament in March after the final round of voting on January 25 and to form a new government in April. But no one outside Myanmar recognizes this farce as legitimate.

Parliamentary and municipal elections were also held in Benin on January 11, a month after security forces thwarted a coup attempt. President Patrice Talon's coalition, consisting of the Progressive Union Renewal and the Republican Bloc, won all 109 seats in the National Assembly. The opposition Democrats party received 16.14 percent of the vote but failed to clear the 20 percent threshold in all 24 electoral districts. As a result, the opposition was completely excluded from parliament. Voter turnout was a meager 36.73 percent, an indicator of widespread apathy or frustration.

Talon, who had ruled since 2016, had gradually altered the electoral system in his favor. Raising the electoral threshold to 20 percent for non-coalition parties proved a virtually insurmountable barrier. Observers spoke of a consolidation of authoritarian control under the guise of democratic procedures. Electoral Commission President Sacca Lafia assured the public that all necessary measures had been taken to guarantee a free, transparent, and secure electoral process. No political ambitions, he asserted, could justify violence or threaten national unity. But the reality was an election without a real choice.

These patterns were repeated to varying degrees worldwide. Even in more established democracies, signs of erosion were evident. Japan's Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi dissolved the lower house of parliament on January 23, just three months after taking office, to call for snap elections on February 8. With approval ratings of around 70 percent, she hoped to regain a majority for her Liberal Democratic Party. But the decision delayed the passage of a much-needed budget to address economic problems. Opposition parties accused her of prioritizing personal popularity over national interests.

Legal battles and the limits of the fourth estate

On January 20, a trial began at the High Court in London that extends far beyond the personal grievances of individual plaintiffs. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, along with six other prominent figures, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, as well as Liz Hurley, is suing the publisher Associated Newspapers for systematic illegal information gathering over a period of two decades. The allegations include telephone hacking, the use of private investigators for surveillance, and intrusions into digital communications to generate sensational stories for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

The plaintiffs argue there was a clear, systematic, and sustained use of unlawful information gathering, which was approved or authorized by editorial management. In written statements, their lawyers alleged that several senior journalists were involved in commissioning or complicity in unlawful practices that devastated the lives of many. Associated Newspapers vehemently denies all allegations. Attorney Anthony White stated that the journalists had provided comprehensive accounts of their source acquisition. The celebrities had leaky social circles, and there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct.

This case is Harry's third major legal battle against British tabloid publishers. In December 2023, he won 15 lawsuits against Mirror Group Newspapers for unlawful information gathering and was awarded approximately $280,000 in damages. In January 2025, News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun, settled for a substantial payment and an apology to Harry, acknowledging misconduct at The Sun for the first time. However, the current case against the Daily Mail is more complex, as the paper has never been the subject of a police investigation and no journalist has admitted wrongdoing.

Critics accuse Harry of grasping at straws. In the Mirror case, the judge ruled in 2025 that generic evidence about the use of the same private investigators by different publications was insufficient to prove wrongdoing at another newspaper. White argued that the plaintiffs were grasping at straws and trying to connect them in a way that lacked analytical support. Nevertheless, the case was admitted because the court found that new evidence had emerged and that the plaintiffs had not known at the relevant time how information was being obtained covertly.

The trial will last over two months, and Harry is expected to testify on January 21. Media attention is enormous, not least because Harry has broken the long-standing royal doctrine of "never complain, never explain." His decision to appear in court in person makes him the first member of the royal family in over a century to testify in such a case. The stakes are high for the British press. Should Harry win, it could trigger further lawsuits and fundamentally challenge the business model of tabloid journalism.

The broader significance lies in the question of whether democratic societies possess effective mechanisms to punish the abuse of power by powerful media corporations. For decades, British tabloids operated with near impunity, protected by political connections and the threat of negative coverage. Only after the 2011 News of the World phone-hacking scandal, which led to the newspaper's closure, did prosecutions begin. But structural reforms remained marginal. The Leveson Inquiry recommended independent press regulation, which was never fully implemented. Harry's lawsuits are attempts to enforce, through civil litigation, what was politically unfeasible. Whether this strategy succeeds will have far-reaching implications for the accountability of the fourth estate.

Technology, control, and the fragmentation of the information space

Beyond the visible events, a less obvious but no less significant development took place this week: the increasing fragmentation of the global information space. While Western democracies debated disinformation and polarization, authoritarian regimes demonstrated the effectiveness of digital control. The Iranian government imposed a near-total internet blackout on January 10 to prevent the coordination of protests. Messaging services, social media, and even virtual private networks were largely blocked. New Zealand temporarily closed its embassy in Tehran and evacuated diplomats to Ankara, citing the deteriorating security situation and the internet blackout as reasons.

China further perfected its censorship infrastructure. During the release of disappointing economic data, critical comments on Weibo and WeChat were deleted within minutes. Algorithms identified keywords such as recession, unemployment, and housing crisis and preemptively blocked posts. Users attempting to use VPNs risked penalties. The Communist Party completely controls the narrative. Official media emphasized that the economy had achieved 5 percent growth and maintained a stable, progressive trend. Alternative interpretations did not exist in the digital sphere.

In democratic countries, the situation was more ambivalent. Elon Musk's platform X, formerly Twitter, played a central role in disseminating Trump's messages. The Greenland crisis unfolded primarily via TruthSocial and X, not through diplomatic channels. This shift of foreign policy to social media undermines established mechanisms for crisis de-escalation. Diplomats can no longer rely on discreet talks when the US president posts his demands publicly and irrevocably on social media. Any retraction is interpreted as weakness, making compromises more difficult.

At the same time, traditional media continued to experience declining reach. Younger generations primarily get their information from TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. The quality of the information is variable. Algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, leading to the spread of sensationalism and misinformation. The fragmentation of the information landscape means that different population groups live in parallel realities with fundamentally different understandings of facts. This significantly hinders democratic deliberation and political consensus-building.

Structural change in a fragmented order

The events of January 19–23, 2026, were not isolated incidents, but rather symptoms of deeper structural shifts. The liberal international order, established after the Second World War and globalized after the Cold War, is visibly eroding. Rules-based cooperation is giving way to transactional power politics. Multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Criminal Court are losing legitimacy and effectiveness.

The EU-Mercosur agreement symbolized an attempt to secure geopolitical influence through economic integration. But the simultaneous US blackmail over Greenland demonstrated that even close allies will use economic weapons when it serves their interests. China's economic data revealed the limitations of authoritarian growth models that rely on exports and state intervention while domestic consumption stagnates. The climate catastrophe in southern Africa exposed the international community's inability to provide climate finance and strengthen adaptation capacities, despite decades of recognized need.

Infrastructure disasters in Spain and Pakistan underscored how cost pressures and deregulation undermine safety standards. Japan's nuclear power reactivation reflected the dilemma of navigating between climate goals, energy security, and nuclear risks. The military interventions in Venezuela and the looming escalation against Iran marked a return to unilateral use of force. The electoral farce in Myanmar and Benin, as well as Harry's legal battles against media conglomerates, illustrated the weakening of the rule of law and democratic mechanisms.

These developments are not coincidentally congruent in time. They result from systemic factors: growing geopolitical competition between the US, China, and regional powers; the erosion of multilateral norms; increasing economic inequality within and between states; the escalating costs of climate change; and the fragmentation of the global information space. Each individual event may be explainable, but together they paint a picture of a world order in flux, the end result of which is unclear.

For decision-makers in politics, business, and civil society, this means that strategies based on stability and predictability are becoming increasingly obsolete. Risk management must be based on the assumption that shocks will become more frequent and severe. Supply chains must be made more resilient, even if this entails higher costs. Energy systems require diversification and redundancy. International cooperation must be built on more flexible, small-group-based formats when multilateral institutions are blocked.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 7348 4088 965 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month