PESTLE & MORTAR 24 July 2025

#1

Changing European Approach to Asia

European foreign policy toward China is undergoing a significant shift, particularly visible in Germany’s recent adoption of its first-ever China strategy. While not a wholesale break from the past, the document signals the slow demise of Merkel-era economic idealism and the emergence of a more cautious and strategic posture. Germany now explicitly frames China as a “systemic rival” alongside its roles as partner and competitor and adopts the EU-wide “de-risking” language rather than “decoupling,” signaling a desire to reduce economic and technological dependencies without cutting ties entirely. This evolution is part of a broader realignment among European states, which are increasingly seeing their security and economic futures as tied to the Indo-Pacific. Notably, the German strategy also embraces a “one-theater” view of Eurasia, explicitly linking security in Europe and Asia and expanding Germany’s presence in the Indo-Pacific, both diplomatically and militarily. This change in foreign policy highlights the growing recognition among European policymakers that China’s rise is not just a regional matter for the U.S. and Asia but a global challenge affecting trade, technology, and norms. It challenges the vision of a strict division of labor in U.S. grand strategy in which Europe handles Russia while the U.S. focuses solely on China. That model, increasingly pushed by hardliners in Washington, is undermined by Europe’s own strategic interests, which now include countering Chinese coercion and maintaining a stable Indo-Pacific. However, this shift is uneven and contested within Europe, and the implementation gap between rhetoric and policy remains large. Germany’s heavy commercial entanglements with China, domestic political divides, and the lack of enforceable economic measures in the new strategy suggest that Beijing will continue to see space for maneuver. Nevertheless, as Germany, the EU, and key allies like the UK and France grow more involved in Indo-Pacific security and regulatory efforts, China will face a less fragmented, more strategically aware Europe that is still finding its footing but no longer asleep to the geopolitical stakes.

#2

Germany Modernizes the Military

Germany’s bold push to modernize its military and embrace AI-enabled warfare signals a dramatic shift in its post-WWII defense posture. By aiming to nearly triple defense spending to €162 billion by 2029, Berlin is responding directly to the perceived threat from Russia and NATO's 3.5% GDP target. The strategy emphasizes agility, innovation, and European self-reliance, backing domestic startups like Helsing and ARX Robotics, while streamlining procurement laws to prioritize speed and EU-based suppliers. However, despite this ambition, several limitations could undermine Germany’s ability to realize this vision fully. First, Germany faces significant bureaucratic inertia. Its defense ministry has long been plagued by procurement delays, budget mismanagement, and a risk-averse administrative culture. Even with legal reforms, entrenched institutional habits and resistance from legacy defense contractors may slow implementation. Second, the Bundeswehr suffers from chronic understaffing, equipment shortages, and morale issues, which cannot be corrected by technology alone. Transforming Germany’s armed forces into a high-tech, AI-enabled military force will require not only hardware, but also doctrine, training, and cultural changes—none of which happen quickly. Third, coalition politics and public skepticism about militarization will likely constrain political will. Germany’s postwar identity has been built on civilian power and restraint. Finally, European defense integration remains fragmented. Although Germany wants to lead a more autonomous European security bloc, it lacks the expeditionary experience, intelligence capabilities, and operational cohesion of France or the UK. If Germany succeeds, however, the balance of power in Europe will shift decisively. It would mark the return of Berlin as a true military actor reshaping the strategic center of gravity from Paris and London toward Central Europe. This could dilute French leadership in EU defense policy, weaken reliance on U.S. security guarantees, and even alter NATO’s internal dynamics.

#3

China’s Potential Economic Strain

China’s economy is entering a period of significant structural strain that presents mounting risks for multinational corporations, investors, and supply chain planners. While headline GDP growth appears healthy, this momentum is largely driven by frontloaded export activity as firms rushed to ship goods ahead of anticipated U.S. tariffs. This artificial boost masks deeper vulnerabilities: persistent deflation, weak nominal growth, and declining corporate earnings all signal that domestic demand remains anemic. Analysts estimate real growth is closer to 3.5% (as opposed to the claimed 5.3%), with limited stimulus options as policymakers await clarity on the U.S. trade environment. Beijing faces a triple economic dilemma: (1) a protracted property sector crisis depressing consumer confidence, (2) a deflationary spiral driven by industrial overcapacity and price wars, and (3) an export sector increasingly exposed to geopolitical headwinds from the U.S. and EU. Local governments and private firms continue expanding in oversaturated sectors like EVs, solar, and batteries, exacerbating global trade tensions while eroding profitability. Unlike past supply-side reforms, Beijing cannot rely on blunt administrative orders alone. Most firms are now private, and local officials are incentivized to maintain industrial activity, not cutting it. This is especially problematic for companies relying on China as a manufacturing hub. The likelihood of state-driven industrial restructuring, coupled with mounting Western trade barriers, means that operational conditions in China are becoming more uncertain, less profitable, and harder to predict. Deflation, youth unemployment (14.5%), and overcapacity will likely translate into social and labor disruptions, slower innovation, and new regulatory shifts as the government tries to regain control.

#4

Vietnam Trade Deal with U.S.

Over the past three decades, U.S.–Vietnam relations evolved into a strategically significant partnership grounded in economic cooperation and shared concerns over China’s rise. However, President Trump’s recent imposition of sweeping tariffs of 46% on Vietnamese imports, with additional penalties for goods seen as Chinese transshipments, threatens to upend this progress. The move reflects a transactional and economically nationalist approach that risks weakening U.S. influence in Southeast Asia while forcing Vietnam into an uncomfortable geopolitical recalibration. Hanoi, which has long practiced a sophisticated balancing act among major powers, including China, Russia, and the United States, now faces pressure to offer compensatory concessions to Beijing to maintain equilibrium. The tariffs will credibly undercut Vietnam’s value as an alternative to China in global supply chains and inadvertently increase both countries' reliance on Beijing, undermining Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Furthermore, this move squanders diplomatic leverage that could have advanced U.S. goals on labor rights, defense cooperation, and regional multilateralism, while signaling to smaller nations that America is an unpredictable partner willing to punish allies rather than lead them. In strategic terms, it is a self-defeating posture that bolsters China’s position in the region.

#5

NYC Mayoral Race Indicator for Future Politics

Zohran Mamdani, a 33‑year‑old democratic socialist and New York State Assembly member, clinched the Democratic mayoral nomination in June, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. His left-wing agenda has also alarmed NYC’s business community. Many business leaders are deeply divided about how to oppose him in November, uncertain whether to rally behind Cuomo or incumbent Mayor Eric Adams. While Mamdani has garnered enthusiastic endorsements from national progressives like Bernie Sanders and AOC, key moderate Democrats such as Schumer and Jeffries have withheld support amid concerns over his economic competence and past controversial statements. The election’s outcome will be a crucial indicator of the ideological direction within the Democratic Party and the broader trajectory of American urban governance. A Mamdani victory would signify a marked shift toward far-left policy frameworks in America’s largest and most symbolically important city. His campaign platform, which includes aggressive rent control, public ownership initiatives, and deep cuts to police funding, reflects the ascendancy of a democratic socialist agenda that challenges traditional center-left policies. If successful, it would likely embolden similar movements in other major urban centers, reinforcing the idea that progressive populism can mobilize electoral coalitions in dense, diverse cities. Such an outcome would likely reshape Democratic policymaking at the local, state, and even federal levels, while creating new risks and uncertainties for private sector actors. For businesses, developers, and investors, the adoption of Mamdani-style economic policies, particularly on housing, finance, and law enforcement, would signal a more adversarial regulatory environment, likely disincentivizing capital investment and altering long-term economic forecasts. The election will be a bellwether for the national left’s momentum and its ability to redefine the Democratic Party’s identity.

#6

China’s Threats to Corporate Executives

Wells Fargo has suspended all business travel to China after one of its senior executives, Chenyue Mao, was subjected to an exit ban by Chinese authorities. Mao, an Atlanta-based managing director and chairwoman of global factoring organization FCI, was reportedly detained in China without a clear explanation. Her case highlights Beijing’s increasing use of opaque exit bans on foreign nationals, often tied to business or civil litigation matters rather than criminal charges. These restrictions can last months or years and have been applied in previous cases involving foreign executives. Although Chinese officials insist that all foreign visitors must follow domestic law, the lack of transparency and due process has heightened anxiety among Western firms. The U.S. Embassy acknowledged the rising use of such exit bans, while refusing to comment on Mao’s specific case. This incident underscores the growing geopolitical and legal risks of conducting business in China, particularly for personnel involved in cross-border finance or strategic sectors. Exit bans have become a tool of leverage in business disputes, investigations, or diplomatic friction, placing foreign executives at risk of arbitrary detention. Companies operating in China must now factor personal security into travel protocols, including restricting solo trips, limiting staff exposure, and conducting pre-travel risk assessments. This environment will likely deter high-level engagement, slow cross-border operations, and erode investor confidence. More broadly, it reflects Beijing’s increasingly assertive use of legal instruments for statecraft, posing significant challenges for multinationals assessing long-term presence and partnerships in the region.

#7

Geopolitical Risk and Corporate Performance

Geopolitical risk has emerged as a defining variable in corporate performance, with recent EY research showing that approximately 60% of FTSE 100 returns are now directly tied to geopolitical and macroeconomic shifts. Their analysis also “found that 1 in 4 global firms have seen significant margin erosion between 2017 and 2024 coinciding with macro shifts, with $320bn in lost profit.” Yet despite this outsized influence, corporate responses remain fragmented and inconsistent. Some companies, like HSBC, have chosen to disband their dedicated geopolitical risk units, citing internal restructuring and cost pressures even as geopolitical volatility intensifies across key markets. Others, by contrast, are embedding geopolitical intelligence into core functions such as supply chain management, M&A strategy, compliance, and C-suite decision-making. This divergence reveals a deeper structural challenge: while geopolitical threats are increasingly material to long-term value, corporate governance systems and investor expectations often incentivize short-term earnings over strategic foresight. As a result, many firms are caught flat-footed when facing disruptions such as tariffs, sanctions, war, or regime change. Meanwhile, consultancies like Clarity Factory are documenting a sharp increase in corporate concern around not just geopolitical shocks, but broader socio-political shifts, including polarization, regulatory divergence, and activist-driven reputational risks. In this environment, a company’s approach to geopolitics—whether reactive, symbolic, or genuinely proactive—will shape its exposure to regulatory blowback, market losses, and reputational harm. More than a political issue, geopolitics has become a strategic variable that demands organizational alignment, long-range planning, and executive accountability.

#8

Japan Lands Trade Deal with U.S.

Following major losses in the Upper House elections, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba faced diminished domestic authority just as he finalized a major tariff deal with President Trump. The agreement reduces U.S. tariffs on Japanese autos from 25% to 15% in exchange for Japan pledging $550 billion in U.S. investment across strategic sectors like semiconductors and agriculture. This announcement sent Japanese and Korean auto stocks soaring and buoyed broader Asian markets, but it also provoked concern among U.S. automakers who fear being undercut by foreign competitors. While the deal marks a win for bilateral relations on paper, Ishiba’s political fragility will credibly undermine Japan’s follow-through, and the selective relief risks fueling discontent within other U.S. industries. The move will likely also prompt other Asian nations to pursue similar negotiations, reshaping regional trade alignments and potentially accelerating a U.S.-centered supply chain pivot in key industries. For multinational corporations and policymakers alike, this evolving landscape demands close attention to political stability, sector-specific impacts, and the strategic direction of U.S. economic statecraft.

#9

The Geopolitics of the Billionaire Backlash

The “We Make, They Take” billboards targeting billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos draw on language first used in America’s original Gilded Age. Then, as now, the slogans reflected a sense that economic power was concentrated in the hands of a few while most people were excluded from its benefits. The political mood behind them has returned. The slogans resonate because they echo broader discontent with inequality, platform monopolies, and extractive models of ownership. We examined these patterns in our report Revolutionary Violence in the New Gilded Age and discussed them in a related episode of the Boardroom Statecraft podcast. The billboards are not just protests but indicators of how deeply economic narratives are hardening. For businesses, they are a reminder that geopolitical risk now includes social and political legitimacy.

🔗 Read the report: Revolutionary Violence in the New Gilded Age
🎙️ Listen to the podcast episode on Boardroom Statecraft: Apple Amazon Spotify

📰Looking for more analysis - subscribe to Strategic Memo our weekly deep dive into the most important geopolitical developments impacting businesses.