When Borders Collide: The India-Pakistan Conflict and Its Global Trade Fallout

Posted on May 16, 2025May 16, 2025 by interos.ai

The long-standing tension between India and Pakistan has taken a critical turn as military actions and retaliatory strikes escalate in the disputed region of Kashmir. This conflict has reached levels not seen between these two countries for decades.

In this analysis, we examine not only the volatile timeline of recent events but also deep dive into the economic stakes – how a breakdown in the current truce could disrupt trade in Kashmir, India, and Pakistan.

Escalating Military Tensions and a Fragile Truce

In early April, a deadly militant attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, claimed the lives of 26 Hindu tourists. The incident immediately set off alarms in an already tense region and led to a sharp escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. On May 3, Pakistan test-fired missiles, pausing direct trade between India and Pakistan in a climate of heightened alert.

Matters intensified when, on May 7, India launched missile strikes against targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, declaring that the strikes were aimed at “terrorist infrastructure.” The death toll rose rapidly with Pakistan reporting 31 fatalities as part of India’s retaliation. In these conditions, airspace closures and cross-border missile and drone deployments further underscored the narrow line between a controlled engagement and a full-blown conflict.

A cautious sense of relief emerged on May 10 when a truce was declared, brokered by the US Government and the Trump Administration, followed by the first night without any firing incidents on May 12.

However, the underlying tensions remain, and with every pause in violence comes a stark warning: if the fragile truce breaks, the economic and human consequences could be immense.

Kashmir: A Disputed Area Under Siege

Kashmir isn’t just a geopolitical flashpoint – it’s also a burgeoning economic hub with a rich artisan background. According to interos.ai, companies in Kashmir have been involved in over 71,227 shipments since January 1, 2024, with 3,786 companies from around the world purchasing goods from the region.

While companies across a wide footprint of industries stand to be impacted by this conflict, interos.ai data highlights that the industries most impacted by a disruption in exports from Kashmir encompass consumer goods and retail.

Industry Concentration of Companies (Global) Buying from Kashmir Companies:

Consumer Goods: 4.9% of the overall trade profile
Apparel Retailers: 4.1%
Supermarkets, Department Stores, and Other Retailers: 3.7%
Retail, NOS: 3.6%

Kashmir is famous for handicrafts such as Pashmina shawls and silk. It’s also the sole producer of saffron in the Indian subcontinent – a spice with a storied history and significant market demand.

The region’s exports are not merely numbers; they represent livelihoods, cultural heritage, and economic stability for an entire community. Disruption to these trade channels, especially in consumer goods and artisanal products, would have far-reaching consequences for both local economies and global supply chains, notably due to the knock-on disruptions to normal operations in India, one of the largest exporting economies in the world.

Country-Level Trade: India’s and Pakistan’s Global Exports

India’s Export Landscape

interos.ai’s knowledge graph contains data on over 5.5 million companies in India, which supply over 540,000 companies globally. Since 2024, these companies have accounted for over 37.6 million shipments.  

interos.ai data highlights the companies most impacted by a disruption in exports from India encompass a wide swath of industries including consumer goods, software, engineering, and manufacturing companies.

Industry Concentration of Companies (Global) Buying from Indian Companies:

Consumer Goods: 4.6%
Business Management and Legal Services: 4.4%
Software and IT Services: 3.9%
Architectural, Engineering, and Design Services: 3.7%
Industrial Equipment Manufacturing and Sales: 3.1%

Most companies that purchase goods from India are located in the United States, making up over 24% of the companies supplied by Indian companies.  Meaning, the United States could feel this disruption keenly if conflict escalates.

Textiles remain a cornerstone of India’s exports – apparel, bedding, linens, and textile furnishings account for over 21% of shipments since 2024. Parts and components that are important for manufacturing finishes goods – rubber parts, plastic parts, and vehicle parts – make up another 10% of India’s shipments since 2024. 

Pakistan’s Export Dynamics

interos.ai’s data shows a robust, albeit smaller, network involving more than 210,000 companies supplying over 46,000 global businesses, with over 1.9 million shipments since 2024. These global businesses also span a wide range of industries – with apparel producers representing the largest share.

Industry Concentration of Companies (Global) Buying from Pakistani Companies:

Apparel Retailers: 7.0%
Consumer Goods: 5.8%
Business Management and Legal Services: 5.4%
Textile Manufacturing: 3.5%

Textile exports dominate Pakistan’s trade profile, with over 70% of shipments comprising apparel, bedding, linens, and other textiles. Most companies that purchase goods from Pakistan are in the United States and the United Kingdom, making up over 22% and 6% of the companies supplied by Pakistani companies, respectively.

What’s at Stake: Breaking the Truce and Regional Implications

The critical question remains: What if the current truce unravels?

Humanitarian and Security Risks: Every escalation brings with it the tragic potential loss of life – not only among combatants but also innocent civilians. The region’s volatile nature coupled with two nuclear armed countries on both sides means that even limited conflict could spiral rapidly out of control.
Economic Disruptions: Shipping ports have halted as both countries banned imports and access to maritime ports. While the direct impact to trade between the two countries is minimal (less than 1% of India’s total trade volume), a single disruption can cascade downstream through entangled supply chains, escalating in impact. We’ve also already seen Pakistan’s stock exchange halted for an hour, as market rebounds from ceasefire announcements triggered regulatory circuit breakers. Markets remain subject to ongoing geopolitical volatility in the region.
Global Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Modern commerce depends on interlinked supply chains. The interruption in goods from regions like Kashmir and India would reverberate across borders – especially affecting countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and emerging tech sectors seeking to leverage ‘Made in India’ initiatives.

Looking Forward: Navigating Uncertainty in a World on Edge

The unfolding events highlight the complexities at the intersection of geopolitical tension and global trade. While a brief pause in hostilities offers hope for de-escalation, the underlying economic stakes amplify the urgency of a lasting political solution. As decision-makers in both nations weigh security considerations against economic necessities, the world watches – with trade routes, industries, and communities awaiting the next move.

Ultimately, peace isn’t merely the absence of conflict; it’s a prerequisite for economic stability, cultural preservation, and the sustainable development of entire regions. Maintaining a stable environment is essential for ensuring that regions like Kashmir continue to thrive as both cultural treasures and vital trade hubs.

Geopolitical instability has the potential to send cascading tremors through our global, interconnected supply chains.

In a climate of tit-for-tat trade wars with tariffs wreaking havoc on supply chains, managing geopolitical risk is table stakes.

Get in touch to assess where your supply chains leave your organization exposed to geopolitical risk.

Speak to an Expert Today

2025 Tariffs Report: Insights to Navigate Trade Wars & Supply Chain Shocks

Posted on May 8, 2025May 8, 2025 by Lexi Sydow

Global supply chains continue to face growing uncertainty and disruption. As President Trump took office in January, Mexico, Canada and China came under immediate scrutiny as the United States top trade partners.

The US-China trade war escalated with a series of tit-for-tat export controls, tariffs, and commercial agreement realignments threatening an accelerated bifurcation of global supply chains.

As this economic warfare continues to escalate – with each side exerting their market powers – companies of all sizes that ignore these market pressures may become collateral damage.

After a series of on-again off-again tariffs and macroeconomic aftershocks, global trade hangs in the balance.

What’s caught in the cross-fire? Supply chains.

How do companies seek stability amid an escalating global trade war?

How do they minimize risk of $100 million disruptions?

Read our Tariffs Report Today for Insights into:

Trump’s Tariffs Timeline
Market chaos in 2025 – which countries are facing 32x increases in tariff rates
Magnitude of disruption to critical products like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, lumber, automobiles and steel and aluminum
Financial fallout and market volatility from “Liberation Day” tariffs
The plight of empty shelves – which markets are already seeing double-digit drop-off in shipments of holiday goods to the US
What actions you can take today to avoid tariff’s wreaking havoc on your supply chains

Download Report

Thousands of Companies Exposed to High Financial Risk Following President Trump’s Tariffs

Posted on April 11, 2025April 11, 2025 by interos.ai

Authors: Kate Anderson, PhD, Senior Manager, Network Science and Teddy DeWitt, PhD, Lead Computational Social Scientist

Markets across the globe crashed in response to last week’s tariffs, erasing more than $10 trillion and causing drops not seen since the beginning of COVID. The turmoil continued on Wednesday, with a series of retaliatory tariff announcements.

While the White House did announce a 90-day delay in country-specific tariffs, with a corresponding market rebound, these swings in the market are disruptive and reflect broader concerns around an uncertain economy.

However, the impact is not uniform. Some companies are seeing larger swings than others, indicative of additional financial risk. Thanks to interos.ai’s anomalous returns predictive model, we can leverage market data to identify which companies and industries have a greater likelihood of enhanced financial risk in this era of uncertainty and trade barriers.

A Tumultuous Financial Market: Tariffs and Trade War

Last week’s reciprocal tariffs executive order introduced a 10% tariff on all US imports, with steeper rates for dozens of countries, including some of the US’s biggest trade partners.

While the worldwide 10% tariff went into effect on Saturday, April 5th, this was then paused and for the next 90 days as of April 9th. The tariff rate on China went into effect on April 9th.

The other promised country-specific tariffs are scheduled to start after a 90-day period. These additional tariffs – impacting 86 countries – disproportionately affect some major US trading partners, including China, India, Vietnam, and Taiwan, with projected severe effects on supply chains and global markets.

The 10% world-wide tariff and “reciprocal tariffs” on other countries add to those already levied by President Trump earlier this year, including an additional 10% duty on imports from China, a 25% tariff on imported cars, 25% on steel, between 10-25% on aluminum, and import tariffs on a variety of Canadian and Mexican goods.

The new batch of US import tariffs hits several of the country’s largest trading partners, which interos.ai forecasts will have a dramatic effect on supply chains.

The initial announcements raised the tariffs on Chinese imports by 54%, to a total of over 64%, with updated announcements increasing rates to 125%.

Chinese goods represent 16% of US imports, including critical parts and raw materials such as rare earth metals. Other major US trading partners were threatened with similarly large tariffs.

India’s announced tariff rate rose from 2% in 2024 to 26%. The tariff rate in Taiwan—the source of most of the world’s semiconductors—rose from 1% to 32%. While semiconductors are not currently under tariff restrictions, President Trump has implied that they may lose that exemption. Tariffs on Vietnam—a significant exporter of electronics—are going from 4% to a staggering 46%.

These tariffs have triggered retaliatory measures by other countries:

China quickly responded with a 34% tariff on all imports from the US, increased to 84% and again increased to 125%.

Canada announced a 25% retaliatory tariff.

European Union reacted with tariffs on a wide range of goods commonly imported from the US.

These numbers are changing daily, fueling uncertainty and market instability.

Financial Instability: Identifying At-Risk Industries and Companies

The reaction of the markets to the tariff announcement was immediate and dramatic.

On April 3rd, the day the tariffs were announced, the markets experienced a drop of 4-6% — the largest single-day drop since the pandemic.

This kind of drop in market price suggests that investors are anticipating future financial instability.

While the markets rebounded after the 90-day stay announcement on Thursday, investors are still extremely nervous, and markets are likely to experience further big swings in the coming months.

As part of interos.ai’s comprehensive machine learning model for financial risk, the anomalous returns model captures unexpected shifts from expected market behavior.

Markets often reflect the collective knowledge of investors about the financial future of a company. By including daily market returns in our scoring, interos.ai leverages that collective knowledge to predict financial risk, especially important in identifying which companies or industries may be most affected.

interos.ai uses an algorithm to identify anomalies in return data—companies that experience a larger drop than would be expected given current market conditions and historical price volatility. This indicator was inspired by the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) banking crisis, when the stock price of SVB experienced an abnormally large decline months before the actual crisis occurred.

Looking at the overall market certainly highlights the pessimism of the market.

However, it disguises an important factor — losses are not uniformly distributed across different parts of the economy.

While some industries experienced large drops in average returns, others saw no drop at all. The table below shows the interos.ai industries that saw the largest drop in market returns last week. Apparel, Manufacturing, and Retail industries saw the biggest hits, followed by Ship Building, Springs, Furniture Manufacturing, Electronic Components, and Freight and Transportation.

The picture is still more complex than that.

interos.ai’s Financial Model Shows Over 1,000 Companies Exposed to Abnormally High Financial Risk from President Trump’s Tariffs

After all, the entire market crashed on April 3rd, and even healthy companies likely took a hit. In addition, some industries are more volatile than others, meaning that what might be a large drop in market price for a metal manufacturer looks very different from what normal looks like in other industries. Our anomalous returns model identifies companies that saw a disproportionate fall in market returns, relative to declines in the rest of the market and relative to historical volatility.

Context is everything.

And makes the difference between getting in front of risk or being controlled by the risky fallouts. While electronics made headlines for seeing a big drop in returns on April 3rd, the data from the anomalous returns model suggests that the drop was not abnormally large. The electronics market is historically volatile such that we expect returns in that industry to drop with the smallest overall market decline.

In contrast, metal manufacturing and fossil fuel extraction are extremely stable industries. Seeing a large drop in the market returns for companies in those industries is a huge red flag, even if they are smaller in absolute terms than the drops in electronics.

interos.ai identified over a thousand companies globally that exhibited an abnormally large response to the market shifts.

These are companies that not only experienced losses, but unexpected losses—losses that are many times larger than would be expected given the overall market decline and are therefore at much greater financial risk.

Some companies experienced extraordinarily large losses, with the highest of these declines upwards of 50%.

Unsurprisingly, many of the penalized companies come from countries heavily impacted by the new tariffs, including Canada, Japan, and China.

Avoiding the Fallout from High Financial Risk

The uncertainty around the US’s position in the global economy continued this week as some announced tariffs went into effect and others were delayed.

The global response to the announcements were swift, with retaliatory tariffs levied against US imports and stock markets falling.

Jamie Dimon, Chaiman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase commented on the risk climate we have entered in his latest letter to shareholders. “The economy is facing considerable turbulence (including geopolitics), with the potential positives of tax reform and deregulation and the potential negatives of tariffs and “trade wars,” ongoing sticky inflation, high fiscal deficits and still rather high asset prices and volatility.”

During such an unprecedented time, supply chain resilience becomes even more critical. To stay afloat in a tumultuous trade war is to stay abreast of the regulatory shifts and to ensure visibility into your supplier dependencies.

If a critical supplier is buried in your supply chain and is exposed to abnormally high financial risk, you need to know. And you need to know so you can act before disaster strikes. Underlying market information can help surface growing financial risks.

interos.ai will continue tracking those companies and industries exhibiting anomalous returns, providing proactive intelligence for our customers as they weather such dramatic micro-economic fluctuations.

Supply chain disruptions cost financial services organizations $164 million per year on average.

See your total financial supply chain and act fast on insights:

Speak to an Expert

Weaponized Supply Chains: Geopolitical Market Risks in an Era of Economic Warfare

Posted on February 14, 2025February 14, 2025 by Andrea Little Limbago

Author: Andrea Little Limbago, PhD, SVP, Applied AI

Over a decade ago, mutual assured economic destruction (MAED) defined the unprecedented interdependence between US and China economies. Based on the growth pace of China’s economy, there was concern that within a decade or two, the power dynamics would shift, and China would no longer be as dependent on the rest of the world as the world is on China.

That scenario may be coming to fruition. The US-China trade war is escalating with a series of tit-for-tat export controls, tariffs, and commercial agreement realignments threatening an accelerated bifurcation of global supply chains.

DeepSeek’s announcement last month, and the subsequent plummeting of US semiconductor stocks, is largely viewed as an inflection point in geopolitical technology competition.

Geopolitical market risks are taking center stage, redefining supply chains, and entering the board room.

Organizations that fail to integrate and monitor these market signals risk extreme shocks as economic warfare reshapes the global economy, corporate technology stacks, and the regulatory landscape.

Global Buyer-Supplier Dependencies

Since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, China’s exports have increased five-fold and its economy is now eleven times larger. China surpassed Germany in 2009 as the world’s largest exporter and now contributes almost 15% of global exports, followed by the United States with 8.3%. China’s top export destinations are the United States at almost 15% share, followed by Hong Kong, Japan, Germany, and South Korea.

In contrast, the US leads all global importers, with a 13.5% share of global imports, followed by China at 8.8%. Top US import destinations are China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Germany.

US goods imports continue to rise, totaling $3.2 trillion in 2022, almost a 15% increase from 202, with China accounting for 16.5% of total goods imports.

In short, China has the upper hand in supply side trade, while the US’ strength lies in its purchasing power.

Those statistics demonstrate extreme interdependency among the economies but mask the underlying retaliatory dynamics.

Since in 2016, over four thousand Chinese companies have been added to various US commercial and financial restrictions. China’s Unreliable Entity List continues to expand, with two new US entities added on February 4th, and unparalleled detentions of corporate executives in recent years, and anti-trust lawsuits against US tech companies.

Moreover, last week’s US tariffs on China were quickly followed by their own tariffs as well as an expansion of control exports on critical minerals used for weapons development, including tungsten and molybdenum.

Critical raw materials affected by the latest tariff-war between the US and China.

Referred to as China’s ‘assassin’s mace’ of economic warfare, it is a continuation of China’s demonstration of power and control over the raw materials the power global technology and weapons systems. The interdependent system decades in the making is undergoing tectonic shifts and wreaking havoc on supply chains ranging from steel and aluminum to AI.

The Growing Convergence of Economic Warfare and AI

At this week’s Paris AI Summit, geopolitics – and not AI technologies – seemed to take center stage.

Governments are doubling down on sovereignty-first AI strategy and national champions following DeepSeek’s announcement. French President Emmanuel Macron contended, “The future of AI is a political stake, of sovereignty and strategic dependence.” US Vice President JD Vance agrees, noting, “We will safeguard American AI and chip technologies from theft and misuse, work with our allies and partners to strengthen and extend these protections and close pathways to adversaries attaining AI capabilities that threaten all of our people.”

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called the Paris AI Summit a “missed opportunity”. While stressing AI’s benefit to humanity, it missed the urgent need for democratic societies to lead in the innovation, fully address the security risks, and account for the disruptions.

For instance, DeepSeek quickly jumped to the number one app download, but within days revelations emerged of its publicly accessible database that exposed private data. Additional concerns over its training data as well as censorship over politically sensitive topics in China further demonstrate the AI divide between authoritarian and democratic governments.

The US and China are asserting their supplier side and purchasing power, respectively, across all aspects of the AI supply chain. For instance, the US continues to tighten AI restrictions based on geopolitical affinity with the US.

Despite questions surrounding the efficacy of US export controls targeting AI, they continue to cause disruption to supply chains. In response, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has decided to halt shipping orders to China unless directly approved by the US, regardless of whether they are on a banned list or not.

In contrast, China continues to ban or limit key high-tech materials to the US that are essential for semiconductors and weapons development. A move that caused shares of those producers to rally following the announcement.

The Shift is On

The potential risk of supply chain bifurcation and realignment is not decades away, but already underway.

In 2023, Mexico surpassed China as the US’ largest importer for the first time in two decades. New supply chain agreements across allies in the Pacific, the Quad’s Supply Chain Resilience Initiative, and Minerals Security Partnership are just a few examples of global cooperative supply chain agreements focused on ally shoring and near-shoring.

In contrast, for over a decade, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been a force for extending economic and political influence, and more recently has shifted to technology transfers and integration. However, the United State’s purchasing power is behind Panama’s recent decision to decline the renewal of an infrastructure agreement with China, striking a blow to China’s hallmark initiative.

As this economic warfare continues to escalate – with each side exerting their market powers – companies of all sizes that ignore these market pressures may become collateral damage.

For instance, small and medium businesses may face the largest adverse consequences of the retaliatory tariffs, while tech giants are now thrust into geopolitics over both competition and security concerns.

If the first month of the year is any indication, geopolitical market risks are going to be the redefining feature of global supply chains in 2025 and must be elevated in corporate risk strategies and in the board room.

For more on the geopolitical risk landscape in 2025, download our 2025 Predictions Report:

Download Now

Retaliation and Economic Uncertainty: The High Stakes of Trump’s Tariff Policies

Posted on February 4, 2025February 4, 2025 by Andrea Little Limbago

Author: Andrea Little Limbago, PhD, SVP, Applied AI

Not with a Whimper, but with a Bang

The rules-based system and international collaboration that has guided the global economy for decades – and quite possibly produced the greatest reduction in worldwide poverty in history – may have come to an end.

With the strike of a pen, the United States is implementing 25% tariffs on allies Mexico and Canada (10% on Canadian energy), coupled with a 10% tariff increase on China.

The delay and uncertainty around the timing and implementation of the tariffs adds an additional level of disruption, that if comes to fruition, would likely mark the end of a global economic system that already was feeling the weight of trade wars, geopolitics, and import controls.

However, this is not simply continuity of the shifts underway since the beginning of the U.S.-China trade war almost a decade ago. The tariffs are an escalation of trade barriers aimed at the U.S.’ top three trade partners, but also two of its closest allies. In fact, President Trump has identified other U.S. allies – the European Union and United Kingdom – as potential upcoming targets of tariffs as well. This is a dramatic shift from the ongoing re-globalization of the global economy and supply chains along geopolitical fault lines and is a much more aggressive adoption of the economic nationalism and the mercantile policies that undermined globalization almost a century ago.

Supply Chain Disruptions, Again

Geopolitics has driven the global restructuring of supply chains, leading to the expansive and unprecedented implementation of industrial policy. However, ally or friend-shoring remained at the heart of this restructuring, with both the U.S. and China building out their economic spheres of influence along with like-minded countries.

These tariffs – if fully implemented – would be a huge blow to post-World War II alliance structures.

Moreover, the tariffs come at a time when China is shaking up the AI and technology landscape and is strengthening collaboration with many of the U.S. geopolitical adversaries.

Given the hyperspecialized, complex, and geographically dispersed nature of supply chains, one country alone cannot simply provide all parts and components for emerging technologies, let alone less strategic industries.

At a time of heightened strategic competition and technological shifts, the tariffs would introduce yet another major disruption to supply chain risk. As the next section details, given the size of the trade flows, very few companies will be immune from the impact of these tariffs.

Products and Industries at the Greatest Risk

The 25% tariff impacts goods flowing into the U.S., serving as a tax on the price of these goods domestically. Based on trade data from Canada and Mexico combined since January 2024, and leveraging interos.ai’s product and industry categorization that are based on self-attestations of a company’s industry and products, the following tables highlight the key products and industries at risk across the 10.5 million number of import shipments into the US.

The major industries impacted range from software and IT to retail and banking and financial services, while products generally include underlying components such as plastic, rubber and iron and steel, indicative of the economy-wide impact of the tariffs.

Both Mexico and Canada have vowed retaliation, and highlight similar dependencies across industries and products, demonstrating the hyperspecializing and interdependency of the three economies.

In contrast, the major industries and products impacted by the additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports highlight a consumer-facing impact as well, with consumer goods and retail among the top industries impacted, although industrial equipment and construction clearly demonstrate the diverse range of industries that will be affected.

The top 10 products imported by US companies from Canada and Mexico make up over 40% of all 10.5 million shipments in total.

Preparing Supply Chains in a Volatile Setting

As of this writing, the tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports are delayed one month, in return for additional troops along the border. There is no word yet on a similar delay to those imposed on China. The shifting nature adds to global uncertainty, which only fuels greater risk and market fluctuations.

The only certainty here is on-going change and disruption, as these tariffs upend decades of rules-based order that has driven globalization and supply chains.

Across the globe, markets fell in response to the weekend’s tariffs news and impending trade war expansion.

For supply chains, decisions made now often take years, not minutes, to implement.

Whether or not to shift operations, for example, has a long-term impact and therefore this growing uncertainty is forcing many to reassess their global footprint amid such potential shifts.

Overhauling supply chains, yet again in some cases, is expensive and time intensive. The unpredictability presented by the tariffs only adds to supply chain risks, especially in geographies until very recently deemed stable and less risky.

From higher prices to operational disruptions to economic shocks, interos.ai is closely monitoring the situation and how it is impacting supply chains and the global economy.

For more on our take on how geopolitics, tariffs, trade, cyber and poised to wreak havoc on supply chains in 2025, read our latest report.

Get your copy of the 2025 Supply Chain Predictions Report Today:

Download Now

Salt Typhoon Telecom Hack Rattles Critical Infrastructure

Posted on December 10, 2024December 23, 2024 by Lexi Sydow

Salt Typhoon: What Happened and Why Does it Matter?

Salt Typhoon was the “Worst telecom hack in our nation’s history,” Senator Mark Warner, Chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee.

Salt Typhoon, a Chinese affiliated hacker group, compromised at least 8 U.S. telecom providers – stealing a large amount of data, including records of government officials and political figures.

The attack was unprecedented in scope and began in 2022.

The extent of the breach is still unknown, with Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) saying it would be impossible to predict when the hackers would be fully removed from the systems.

Watch our take on the events below:

Downstream Supply Chain Impact

Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission announced the need for “a modern framework to help companies secure their networks and better prevent and respond to cyberattacks in the future.”

In our interconnected world, this extends to vulnerabilities in your supply chain.

Using interos.ai’s data, we see the Salt Typhoon attack impact could ripple out to 3.3 million distinct companies in the extended supply chain of 4 of the largest telecom companies in the US.

We estimate that the affected telecom companies represent a significant portion of the U.S. economy, serving over 350 million wireless customers collectively and generating more than $334 billion in annual revenue.

If even a fraction of these systems remains compromised, the downstream impact on businesses reliant on secure communications could reach into the tens of billions in economic losses.

Ted Krantz, interos.ai’s CEO Discusses New Era of Cybersecurity

“Beyond the immediate blast radius, we must consider the future ramifications. Cyberattacks like this can fuel cascading effects we aren’t yet prepared for—whether that’s enabling more sophisticated surveillance of private citizens or jeopardizing critical infrastructure. Each stolen record costs the economy an average of $169, according to industry data. Multiplied by the potential number of affected individuals, the total economic cost could exceed $15 billion in direct and indirect damages within the next year alone.”

– Ted Krantz, CEO, interos.ai discusses.

“The FCC’s proposed clarifications and certification requirements are steps in the right direction, but we must also prioritize collaboration between the private sector, regulators, and intelligence agencies to build a modern cybersecurity framework.”

“This includes leveraging advanced technologies like AI to improve threat detection and response, increasing transparency across supply chains, and fostering global partnerships to address cross-border cyber threats.”

“The Salt Typhoon attack may be unprecedented in scope, but it is not surprising. We’re in a new era of attacks targeting critical infrastructure.”

“This is a battle we’ve been preparing for, and one we must pre-empt with innovation and data-fueled risk intelligence.”

Defend Against Digital Threats

Before disaster hits, Interos’s critical risk intelligence platform helps companies mitigate the financial impacts of multi-tier risks like cyber attacks by continuously mapping and monitoring extended supply chains at speed and scale.

Learn how you defend against digital threats.

Speak to an expert today

It’s That Time of Year Again: US Government Releases New Restrictions List

Posted on November 26, 2024December 23, 2024 by Lexi Sydow

Authors: Andrea Little Limbago, PhD, SVP, Applied AI and Mackenzie Clark, Senior Computational Social Scientist

Annual Tradition: End of Year Sanctions and Restrictions

Last week’s release of UFLPA and OFAC restrictions follows a recent trend where widespread export controls are released en masse prior to the new year.

For instance, in December 2023, the Departments of Treasury and State issued sweeping sanctions targeting Russia’s energy production and export capacity. This was followed a few weeks later by an Executive Order (E.O. 14114) that issued another round of sanctions against financial institutions supporting Russia’s military-industrial base. It was also preceded by two different rounds of Russia-related sanctions on December 1 and November 16.

Similarly, in December 2022, Treasury issued several sanctions targeting Russia’s financial sector, very much in alignment with those issued last Thursday. This continued the trend from December 2021, when Treasury issued distinct sanctions targeting Belarus and entities associated with human rights abuses.

The UFLPA also made some end of year additions in 2023, although those were much fewer than the 29 companies added last week, which increased the overall entity list to over 100 Chinese companies connected to forced labor.

We recently covered two of the latest additions and the potential impact it could reap on global steel and aspartame (a sugar substitute) supply chains (spoiler: tens of millions of companies could be impacted).

If the past week is any indication of what is to come, organizations should expect more restrictions to follow the path of the recent updates focused on Russian financial institutions and human rights abuses.

The following analysis will answer:

How far do the OFAC and UFLPA-sanctioned companies reach globally?
Which industries are most at risk for potential future sanctions?
How do you react to these and prepare for future sanctions?

The Latest Round of OFAC Restrictions on Banks and Financial Services in Russia: Who is Impacted?

The latest sanctions announcements from the United States Department of the Treasury and Department of Homeland Security target a wide array of companies in Russia and China. The extended impact of these restrictions, however, have the potential to cascade to companies across the globe.

On November 21, the addition of Gazprombank — and almost 100 other international subsidiaries and affiliates — to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List marked the designation of “Russia’s largest remaining non-designated bank.”

With Russia’s largest financial institutions sanctioned by not only the United States, but other major countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, it is important to understand where the risk of exposure to these sanctioned banks may still exist.

Using Interos data, we analyzed the extended supply chains of Gazprombank, VTB Bank, and Sberbank and identified over 7,500 companies across three tiers of supplier relationships that are either directly or indirectly supplied by one of the banks.

These numbers are relatively low compared to other supply chain propagation, likely due to decreasing integration of Russian banks with the Western economies since the invasion of Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the scale is by no means trivial and indicates the stickiness of these relationships.

Of the potentially exposed companies with supplier-buyer relationships linked to the new sanctioned entities, almost 60% of them are located either in the United States or the United Kingdom.

When leveraging Interos’ Industry Categories designations, we identified the top three sectors represented across the sanctioned companies as Software and IT Services, Banking and Financial Services, and Business Management Services.

29 Million Companies Could Face Fines from UFLPA Entity List Additions: Agricultural Products, Metals, and Polysilicon in China

Just one day after the new restrictions targeting the Russian banking industry, 29 new companies were added to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, bringing the total number of companies on the list to over 100.

This action primarily targeted companies that produce agricultural goods, specifically tomato paste and tomato products, walnuts, red dates and raisins. Other newly restricted companies include exporters of materials and products derived from aluminum, nonferrous metals, and polysilicon.

Interos conducted an analysis on the extended supply chain of these companies and identified over 29 million companies across three tiers of supplier relationships that are either directly or indirectly supplied by one of the newly restricted UFLPA entities.

These companies could be subject to UFLPA fines.

Again, most of the companies that could be impacted — over 34% of them — are located in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom (9%), India (8%), Germany (4%), and Italy (3%) – and thus could be subject to UFLPA fines.

Leveraging Interos’s Industry Categories reveal the top three sectors among this group of exposed companies include Business Management Services, Software and IT Services, and Consumer Goods.

These two scenarios, while distinct, highlight the importance of continuously monitoring suppliers of both services and physical goods to avoid potential fines, seizure of imports and reputational damage.

Which Industries are Most at Risk Looking Ahead?

Given the ongoing implementation of export controls and industrial policy, organizations should plan for future additions to these and dozens of other restrictions lists. Fortunately, there are a few insights to help look ahead and begin de-risking from future regulatory risks.

For instance, in September, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) introduced worldwide export controls on critical technologies.

These include: additive manufacturing items, advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment, quantum computing items, and gate all-around field-effect transistor (GAAFET) technology.

A presumption of denial affects countries deemed a national security concern, including Armenia, Belarus, Cuba, Iraq, North Korea and Russia.

Companies in these industries, as well as other critical and emerging technology industries, and from those countries are at immediate regulatory risk.

Similarly, BIS also has a high priority list focused on Russian products believed to fuel Russia’s military-industrial complex.

Companies associated with these products, as well as those across a wide range of critical technologies, are much more likely to appear on a restrictions list in the future than those in other product or industry categories.

Monitoring Risk Exposure with Risk Intelligence Data

Geography is another means for assessing future restrictions risk.

In addition to companies in those countries, the BIS Country Groups D and E, companies located in – or have a supply chain connection to – the XUAR are also at significantly greater risk of future restrictions inclusion.

Using Interos data, we identified over 231,000 other companies located in XUAR that may pose future compliance risks in global supply chains.

When analyzing three tiers of supplier relationships for these companies, Interos data shows the following industries at the highest risk for potential disruptions if restrictions on XUAR companies continue to expand.

These are the industries with the greatest frequency across companies in XUAR:

Business Management Services
Software and IT Services
Consumer Goods
Architectural, Engineering, and Design Services
Building and Civil Engineering Construction

In short, last week’s additions to the OFAC and UFLPA restrictions lists are consistent with regulatory updates from the past few years.

Moreover, by leveraging industry, product, and geographic risk management information, organizations can be more proactive in preparing for export controls against companies that meet those criteria listed above.

Product and industry categories not only provide value for proactively addressing restrictions risk, but also have several other benefits, such as benchmarking and product tracing throughout supply chains.

Keep an eye out for a forthcoming blog that will detail these new features and how they impact the full lifecycle of supply chain intelligence.

Have questions today?

Speak to an Expert

New Additions to UFLPA Entity List Show Forced Labor in Supply Chains of 79,000 Companies

Posted on October 8, 2024December 16, 2024 by interos.ai

Authors: Andrea Little Limgbago, PhD and Mackenzie Clark

Steel and Aspartame Companies Join UFLPA Entity List

Last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced two new additions to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. Although the law has been in effect for several years, it marks the first inclusion of a steel or aspartame company on the UFLPA Entity List.

This reflects the expansion of the UFLPA since its inception, as well as the growing concern and risks associated with forced labor in the supply chain.

Interos has been closely monitoring the UFLPA since it came into effect, along with dozens of other critical sanctions and prohibitions lists and helps illuminate connections to these companies deep within complex supply chains.

Cracking Down on Forced Labor in Supply Chains

The UFLPA aims to eliminate forced labor from supply chains through the prohibition on the importation of goods made in part or entirely from forced labor. The law specifically focuses on the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, but it also applies to all forced labor in all of China. A review of these companies highlights how important it is to maintain visibility across the entire supply chain ecosystem, as small relationships grow exponentially as you move to the outer tiers of a supply chain.

Two Companies Identified Puts 79,000 Companies at Risk

The two new additions to the UFLPA Entity List are Baowu Group Xinjiang Bayi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd and Changzhou Guanghui Food Ingredients Co. Ltd.

According to Interos data, these two companies directly supply over one hundred companies (Tier 1), who in turn supply almost 2,500 companies (Tier 2). Those companies, in turn, supply approximately 79,000 companies, and represent almost 280,000 distinct buyer-supplier relationships (Tier 3).

Importantly, the UFLPA not only consists of an Entity List, but also prioritizes seven industries for enforcement:

Apparel
Cotton and cotton products
Silica-based products
Tomatoes and downstream products
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Aluminum
Seafood

The last three industries were added earlier this summer and represent the first new addition of key sectors since 2022.

With last week’s inclusion of steel and aspartame companies on the UFLPA Entity List, we should prepare for the potential expansion of those key industries in the near future.

What Would that Impact Look Like on the Chinese Steel and Aspartame Industries?

Interos data highlights the widespread impact of the Chinese steel industry. There are over 66,000 companies in China that sell steel or steel products. Globally, over 655,000 unique companies buy from those companies (Tier 1), a number that grows to over 2.6 million companies when looking at the buyers from those companies (Tier 2).

These numbers pale in comparison to the number of buyer-supplier relationships stemming from those 66,000 companies in China that sell steel or steel products. There are 4.4 million relationships stemming from those companies (Tier 1), which balloons out to over 23 million relationships one hop out (Tier 2), and almost 64 million relationships to the next level of the supply chain (Tier 3). Across these tiers, over a third of the companies are located in the United States, followed by India, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France.

A similar ripple effect appears when looking at producers of aspartame and aspartame-containing products. There are almost 3,000 companies in China that produce aspartame and aspartame-containing products. The impact balloons to over 200,000 companies that buy from those companies (Tier 1), and over two million companies that buy from those 200,000 companies (Tier 2).

We again see the number of unique buyer-supplier relationships exponentially increase across the companies that sell aspartame and aspartame-containing products. Globally, there are over 500,000 buyer-supplier relationships linked to those companies in China (Tier 1). Those, in turn, are connected to almost 12 million distinct relationships (Tier 2), which explodes to over 60 million relationships at the next tier (Tier 3).

Again, over a third of the companies are in the United States, highlighting a potential significant risk if the UFLPA expands to include either of these industries as a key sector for investigation.

Not Just the US: Global Supply Chain Examination is a New Reality

The United States is not alone in sanctioning human rights violators within supply chains. The European Union, United Kingdom, and Canada, along with the United States, all initially coordinated sanctions in 2021. As Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas explained, “The UFLPA is catalyzing American businesses to fully examine and assess their supply chains….” The same is true elsewhere, as earlier this year the European Parliament adopted a new law aimed at eliminating all forced labor, not just from China, in the supply chain.

In return, China is taking steps toward enforcing its own law introduced four years ago that creates an ‘Unreliable Entity List’ for companies evading the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and exhibiting discriminatory measures against products made there. This puts companies in a dilemma of conflicting regulatory practices between China and the United States, European Union, and other Western democracies.

Major Regulatory and Financial Risks at Stake

Aside from the regulatory and reputational implications, there also are growing financial risks. Almost $3.6 billion worth of goods have been seized under UFLPA enforcement, highlighting the financial as well as reputational and humanitarian risks at stake.

At Interos, we continue to monitor the regulatory landscape, as well as those industries and companies associated with key sectors or products at risk. Flagging the UFLPA alone is not enough to minimize human rights violations within the supply chain.

Identification is Not Enough: Compliance Requires a Regional View and Cross-Examination of Human-Rights Violation Lists

In addition to the UFLPA, Interos also denotes any company located within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, since the UFLPA specifies the additional scrutiny applied to any goods stemming from that region, whether they are on the Entity List or not.

Moreover, Interos also specifically flags whether a company is on a human rights-related violations list because other restrictions, such as the Global Magnistky Act, address human rights violations and must be integrated into a broader strategy of eliminating human rights violations from the supply chain and addressing the associated regulatory and reputational risks.

Take Action: Root Out Forced Labor from Your Extended Supply Chain

Interos’ continuous monitoring alerts quickly identify the potential impact of additions to new restricted entities lists across their extended supply chain. This visibility empowers companies to get ahead of potential violations both upstream and downstream in their supply chain.

To identify if you are at risk of using a restricted entity, speak to an expert today.

Speak to an expert

Hezbollah Device Explosions: A Stuxnet Moment for Supply Chain

Posted on September 22, 2024December 16, 2024 by Andrea Little Limbago

Author: Dr. Andrea Little Limbago

An Inflection Point

Almost six years ago, Bloomberg published a report on Chinese government infiltration of 30 US companies through the technology supply chain. This report was highly controversial within the cybersecurity community and remains openly disputed regarding the validity of inserted ‘spy chips’. Since then, there has been less focus on infiltrated technology supply chains, as the pandemic and trade wars shifted attention away from espionage and toward more traditional industrial policy and risky businesses within the supply chain ecosystem.

On September 17 and 18, 2024, infiltrated pagers and walkie talkies exploded across Lebanon, escalating the decades-long conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. While investigations remain ongoing, reports point to Israel infiltrating a complex supply chain of devices sold in Hungary, and authorized to sell on behalf of a Taiwanese company, Gold Apollo. While the company sold devices to the broader population, those sold to Hezbollah contained the explosive PETN. As more information becomes available, a picture will likely unfold of complexity and extremely targeted backdoor infiltration of a technology supply chain.

This past week’s attacks in Lebanon are an inflection point, expanding technology supply chain risks toward supply chain sabotage, and shifting all rules of engagement in supply chain security and modern warfare. Whether or not ‘spy chips’ occurred in the past, given the shift in norms, a line has been crossed, rendering technology supply chain infiltration a growing supply chain security risk in a tenuous geopolitical environment.

New Rules of Engagement in Modern Warfare

The supply chain infiltration behind the attacks is on such a distinct scale and scope, it is reminiscent of the turning point from the Stuxnet cyber attacks, described as the world’s first digital weapon. In 2010, reports surfaced that several zero days exploits simultaneously sabotaged Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. Most research identifies U.S. and Israeli intelligence as the creators of the exploits, which weren’t widely noticed until they spread beyond the Natanz facility.

Viewed as the first digital weapon to cause physical damage, it shifted all cyber norms and rules of engagement and opened Pandora’s Box to the modern cyber threat landscape. From the 2012 Saudi Aramco attacks where wiper malware destroyed over 35,000 computers to Russia’s BlackEnergy cyber attacks on the Ukrainian energy grid in 2015 and 2016 to Saudi Aramco to Iran’s failed penetration of New York’s Rye dam, physical infrastructure by cyber attacks is no longer unexpected or unprecedented. In fact, earlier this year FBI director Christopher Wray detailed how China is burrowed deeply within US infrastructure.

The Tipping Point for Security Risk

In a similar manner, just as Stuxnet upended the norms of cyber behavior and physical destruction, the explosive devices used against Hezbollah will upend all norms behind supply chain infiltration and destructive effects. There already has been a growing national and economic security concern over risky businesses within the supply chain ecosystem. Since 2016, the US has added thousands of companies to a range of sanctions lists, many of which are deemed national security risks.

Five years ago, the Pentagon blocked military from purchasing phones made by Huawei and ZTE due to national security risks. This has been a growing trend across the globe, as India blocked Chinese apps, China blocked Kaspersky and Semantic, Australia removed Chinese security cameras and so on. These have often been coined backdoor risks, as companies legally enter a supply chain ecosystem without any need for obfuscation.

These have generally focused on software, not hardware, backdoors into systems. Last week, we may have witnessed the tipping point for hardware backdoor supply chain security risk based on the insertion of illegal or unknown physical parts. While distinct in its execution, there has been growing concern over the security of the hardware supply chain.

The US CHIPS and Science, in part, targets this risk by incentivizing the manufacturing of semiconductors domestically. Nevertheless, the exploding devices manifest the real-world impact when foundational technologies are used as Trojan horses to carry out military objectives. As we have seen with Stuxnet, once that Pandora’s box is opened, it is a game-changer in the risk landscape and global norms.

How Can Companies Protect Themselves in this New Norm?

To prepare for yet another significant disruption shaping the new normal, there are several steps organizations can take.

First, foundational risk approaches still hold true but require even greater diligence. Perfunctory risk processes are inadequate for this risk landscape. Know your supplier (KYS) takes on even greater importance, not just within direct suppliers but across the entire supply chain ecosystem. This, in turn, requires augmented visibility across your supply chain, a difficult feat due to the hyperspecialized and complex supply chains built over the last few decades where geopolitics was not taken into account.

Gaining that visibility is just the start, additional context is required. For instance, are any of the thousands of restricted companies present several tiers within your supply chain? In many cases, these companies have already been linked to data exfiltration, it is not a great leap to consider hardware infiltration from these same technology companies. According to Interos data, 148 (~30%) S&P 500 companies have a direct supplier relationship with a banned company, risking severe civil and criminal penalties, 19% of which are in the Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing industry. Beyond these direct (tier-1) suppliers, virtually every S&P 500 company has sub-tier (tier-2, tier-3 and beyond) supplier relationships with at least one at-risk or restricted company.

This has always posed a regulatory risk, but the national and economic security risks must also feature in supply chain security risk assessments. While last week’s attacks were not via a restricted company, those technology companies on restricted lists represent a more probable pathway to hardware infiltration and warrant heightened alert.

Tracking the latest in restricted companies is difficult as there is no single consolidated list across all U.S. and international organizations. Fortunately, Interos simplifies this process by surfacing several dozen restrictions lists across the US, Five Eyes, and international governmental organizations, extended across the entire supply chain ecosystem. These companies, especially those in technology, are at the highest risk of technology supply chain infiltration. These companies do not only pose a regulatory risk but could also interdict data or sabotage on behalf of adversaries.

The stark reality of this new era is that the geopolitical risk stems much broader than restrictions – companies and governments need visibility into all areas of supply chain risk: financial, cyber, ESG, geopolitical and catastrophic risk.

In short, the globalized era of entangled supply chains absent geopolitical considerations is over.

Supply Chain Security: Time to Double Down

Almost a decade ago, the fictional political thriller Ghost Fleet imagined a future war beginning with supply chain infiltration. In this futuristic scenario, China hacks the U.S. electronics supply chain, disrupting everything from navigation systems to fighter jets. The digital revolution – or the fourth industrial revolution – continues to shorten the time frame between futuristic scenarios and modern reality.

As Stuxnet demonstrated almost fifteen years ago, the shifting cyber attack landscape quickly expanded beyond governments and into the public sector. The device explosions in Lebanon similarly crossed a new line and will accelerate the pace at which the technology supply chain is exploited by government and non-government actors alike. Whether the Bloomberg report proves valid or not, the supply chain infiltration of the devices introduces similar supply chain security risks – it’s no longer a matter of if, but when a technology supply chain infiltration will occur again.

Just as software backdoors have increased in prevalence, the same may soon be true of hardware backdoors, making it all the more critical for a fresh look and reprioritization of supply chain security.

We are here to help.

Speak to a risk intelligence expert today

“It’s Going to Get Worse Before It Gets Better” Navigating Supply Chain Geopolitical Risks: Insights from National Security Experts

Posted on August 4, 2024August 27, 2024 by interos.ai

by Alea Marks & Dianna ONeill

Interos’s new executive insights series, “Voices of Innovation,” hosted a critical conversation on escalating geopolitical threats to supply chain security.

The inaugural session brought together former NSA Director and US Cyber Command head, Admiral Mike Rogers (Ret.) and Andrea Little Limbago, Ph.D., Head of Applied AI, Interos, and a frequent speaker on geopolitical risk and cybersecurity.

Five Key Quotes

1-Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

In an era of global interconnectedness, supply chains have become increasingly complex and efficient. However, this integration introduces acute new vulnerabilities. Today’s multinational ecosystems can easily encompass thousands of sub-tier suppliers, fueling continued supply chain disruptions that cost the global economy $3 trillion in annual losses.

Admiral Rogers highlighted this double-edge sword, noting the ripple effect across interconnected systems:

“There’s definitely been a tradeoff,” Rogers observed. “The downside is we have to acknowledge, as we can see with CrowdStrike being the latest issue, that we’ve got fundamental vulnerability inherent in the system.”

2-Geopolitics and Corporate Boards

Given the global footprint of many large enterprises, Admiral Rogers highlighted the growing concern among corporate boards regarding geopolitical risk:

“I spend a lot of time talking to corporate boards on geopolitics. They are trying to understand, the world around me seems to be changing. That has implications for my business model, and it has implications for my liability and responsibility.”

Rogers emphasized that companies are increasingly recognizing the need to better understand the global context and for their supply chain operations, identify risks, and develop strategies for risk mitigation and prioritization.

3-Criminals Targeting Supply Chains

In discussing evolving digital cyber threats, Admiral Rogers expressed surprise at the recent trend of criminals targeting digital supply chains:

“I never thought I would see criminals go into supply chain, supply chain route in terms of an attack vector. That was true until about 15 months ago, but we’re now seeing criminals going down this route. So, organizations now are routinely asking themselves, do I understand the dimensions of my supply chain? And what steps am I taking to try to mitigate that risk?”

4-Proactive Risk Mitigation

Anticipating and preparing for potential disruptions emerged as a critical theme. Rogers emphasized the value of proactive planning and regular practice in enhancing an organization’s resilience:

“The more time you put up front in thinking through and anticipating, the better your performance in crisis,” he advised. “I can’t anticipate every scenario, but the more I train, the more I simulate, the more I practice, the more efficient and effective I’ll be in responding to disruption and generating resilience.”

5-Evolving National Security Landscape

The conversation addressed the changing nature of national security, which now encompasses economic security and digital advantage. Rogers highlighted how this shift is leading to increased government involvement in previously private sector domains.

“Governments are getting much more directive and much more broadly involved,” Rogers observed. He noted a significant shift in cybersecurity strategy: “The biggest shifts in [cybersecurity] strategy were, number one, it’s no longer the individual user to hold accountable – it’s the entities that are in the best position to achieve a broad impact.”

Interos Watchtower™: A Strategic Solution

Rogers and Little Limbago also discussed Interos Watchtower™, AI-driven technology that provides personalized risk models to defend against geopolitical threats. Rogers noted the criticality of mapping and prioritizing threats, emphasizing:

“We have got to get to prioritization. Because if we can’t prioritize, if we can’t figure out the best use of limited resources, we got real problems.”

Watchtower highlights vulnerable suppliers based on potential business impact, allowing organizations to prioritize and remediate regulatory, cyber, government intervention, and foreign ownership risks, among others.

Looking Ahead

Admiral Rogers concluded with a sobering yet hopeful outlook:

“It’s going to get worse before it gets better.” However, he noted that more businesses and senior leaders are acknowledging the challenge, stating, “You can’t solve a problem if you don’t acknowledge it.”

The conversation made clear the pervasive nature of geopolitical supply chains impacts. From trade tensions to shifting nation-state alliances, a host of changing global dynamics present new opportunities for disruption. Organizations that fail to adopt a proactive, technology-driven approach to these realities risk falling behind.

Technologies like Interos Watchtower™ are a significant advancement, offering the personalized, actionable intelligence necessary to enhance supply chain strength and security in a volatile landscape.

Learn more HERE.