The International Risk Podcast

Episode 301: Lessons Learned 2025 - Part One with Dominic Bowen and Melanie Meimoun

• Dominic Bowen

Share episode

2025 wasn't just a year with a few bumps, it really was a live fire activity when it comes to leadership, business models, political systems and geopolitics and I think we've had some amazing guests on the International Risk Podcast this year. I'm Dominic Bowen, host of the International Risk Podcast and as wars are dragging on, new ones are flickering at the edges, we've got supply chains being put under stress, significant gaps between the wealthy and those that are struggling to make ends meet, there is no shortage of international risks for us to be discussing and today I'm joined by one of my colleagues, Melanie Mamoun. 

The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you’re a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.

The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Visit Conducttr to learn more.

Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe’s leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today’s business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.


Tell us what you liked!


I really think that the best leaders have stopped obsessing about predicting the next crisis and predicting the next incident and instead we're really focussing on being correctly positioned. Welcome back to the International Risk Podcast where we discuss the latest world news and significant events that impact businesses and organisations worldwide. Today's episode is sponsored by Conducttr. 

They're the winner of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Innovation in 2021. Conducttr builds fully customisable crisis management exercise from cyber attacks to multi-layer geopolitical incidents. They use a virtual desktop of simulated emails, websites, social media and team style channels so your crisis team can train against the risks that your company is most likely to face. 

Go to Conducttr.com to learn more about their systems. 2025 wasn't just a year with a few bumps, it really was a live fire activity when it comes to leadership, business models, political systems and geopolitics and I think we've had some amazing guests on the International Risk Podcast this year. I'm Dominic Bowen, host of the International Risk Podcast and as wars are dragging on, new ones are flickering at the edges, we've got supply chains being put under stress, significant gaps between the wealthy and those that are struggling to make ends meet, there is no shortage of international risks for us to be discussing and today I'm joined by one of my colleagues, Melanie Meimoun. 

Melanie, welcome to the International Risk Podcast. Thank you, Dominic. It feels weird to be on this side of the interviews but I feel great about it.

I think this is going to be a lot of fun. Now, many of our listeners will know your name, they'll have heard me say your name at the end of many, many episodes but this is the first time they've seen and heard you so you do a lot of work behind the scenes. Did you maybe want to tell us what is it that keeps you busy on the podcast? The interview sheets, I mean learning as much as I possibly can about the topics that matter and the ones I really want to bring forward and mostly I think finding a balance between neutrality, for example, when researching a conflict but also not being afraid to tell things that are uncomfortable sometimes and finding guests who bring that voice about and editing takes all my time so but it feels great to do this work and feel like we bring something that is, you know, we're not sorry for bringing things that are unbiased, hopefully unbiased, so yeah, I love what we do. 

Oh, that's great. I think, you know, our listeners will really appreciate what you do even if they don't necessarily, now they've got a face to put to that name but it's all your research and all your engagement with experts and then guests and then putting these research papers together that enables us to really dig into some of these topics with the robustness that we do. And whereabouts do we find you today? I'm in Paris. 

I do a lot of back and forth between London and Paris. I studied in London but I was born and raised in Paris, unfortunately. Unfortunately, that's not a bad place to be.

I'm quite jealous of you right now, Mel. Where are you right now? I'm in Stockholm and I'm actually getting ready to get onto a plane to Australia, which I am very excited about. Sunshine, beaches, friendly people, amazing food. 

Is it Melbourne? Yeah, that's right. I'll be spending my time in Melbourne and I cannot express enough how excited I am. It's going to be great.

You know, I've always been afraid of bugs and the videos I see on the internet, I know I should just stop looking at those giant tarantulas and other weird animals just scare me. Yeah, there's certainly a lot of snakes and a lot of spiders in Australia. It's quite interesting you talked about that. 

My social media feed, literally all it is right now is reels of Donald Trump's statements over the last 24 hours and shark attack videos. It's like Instagram has obviously worked out that I'm about to return to Australia, but it's just shark attack videos and Donald Trump right now. I'm not sure what I should be more worried about. 

Well, should we jump in? Oh, absolutely. Actually, I have a few questions to ask you. First one is, Dominic, you wear a few hats. 

You partner at 2Secure and you host our beloved The International Risk Podcast. So looking back at 2025, what did this year really teach you about how smart leaders think about risks and uncertainty? Yeah, that's a really interesting question. And I think hopefully our listeners today can really try and use some of the conversation you and I are having to really reflect on our own leadership style and how they look at things. 

But one of the things that I've certainly learned is trying to move away from predicting the future. It's just not possible. Now, of course, one of the first questions clients always ask me is who is going to win the next election? Is there going to be a rate cut? What's going to happen in the markets? What's the likelihood of there being another natural disaster in this country or a terrorist attack in this place? I really think that the best leaders have stopped obsessing about predicting the next crisis and predicting the next incident. 

And instead, we're really focussing on being correctly positioned based on whatever happens, looking at different possible futures and accepting that there are many possible futures and working through those to make sure that where we put ourselves today aligns us and puts us in the best possible position to take advantage and create what we call luck, put us in the best position for luck. And I think also recognising that while we're operating in environments so full of volatility, so full of drama, so full of uncertainty, that does give us signals. There's plenty of signals in the market. 

I think what really good leaders are doing is what does this tell us about our assumptions? What assumptions did I make and what actually happened and what was the reality and why is this happening to us? So using the uncertainty as another data point. I think the other one is that obsession with decision readiness it's not more reports. What we need is leaders that are more comfortable making faster decisions with incomplete information and making these decisions and being ready to pivot when they realise that the decision wasn't right or maybe wasn't the best decision or new data has now become available. 

But making faster decisions and then being more agile to capitalise on those. I think they're some of the things that really have defined good leadership for me this year. And I wonder, Mel, we talk about leadership, we talk about risk. 

I remember having a great conversation with Aryan Sharifi. He was a member of the Afghan government and talking to him about his leadership style and how he approached leadership as Afghanistan was being taken over by the Taliban. I think that was episode 274. 

You coordinated that and we spoke a lot about the value of doing that episode. I wonder what you've managed to learn about Afghanistan, about instability and even actually stability in Afghanistan today. And was there things that surprised you about the Taliban? I remember there was a few things that Aryan said that really surprised me about the Taliban's rule today. 

What did you get out of that when you were doing your research, when you're speaking with experts and even with Dr Sharifi himself? Well, absolutely. I mean, you mentioned instability and stability in the same sentence. It was really what defined the conversation with Aryan. 

I remember speaking with him on the phone and speaking with him at first prior to the interview made me realise that I didn't want the topic to be only human rights focused, but really understand why the Taliban were able to take over in 2021. And what really came through, I mean, both when I was preparing the interview sheet and listening to the conversation with Aryan that you had, is that Afghanistan's instability is not just simply because of the Taliban takeover, but it was there prior because of fragmented governance. President Ghani's government, as Dr Sharifi mentioned, had no institutional continuity. 

So there was a complete absence of inclusive political settlement. And the Taliban, as Dr Sharifi mentioned, managed for the first time in decades to have a highly centralised rule. And it might sound counterintuitive, but the Taliban really managed to make a highly secure territory by excluding elites or former elites, ethnic minorities, civil society, and scaring away, or if not dismantling, at least scaring away terrorist groups. 

So this orderly instability, as Aryan said, came at a cost. I mean, women's rights are barely even appearing in Afghanistan and the rule of law is pretty much overshadowed by Taliban power. And I think one thing that I initially approached the topic thinking I was going to hear about factionalism within the Taliban, for example, I remember researching about the network operating in Kabul versus the one operating in Kandahar. 

And in the interview, Aryan really clarified that this fragmentation hasn't truly materialised because the Taliban's leadership maintains discipline through, I guess, ideology first, but also full arbitrary and strong suppression of any dissident. I remember Aryan talked about coming back home, where he's from, and they asked him questions. Why are you here? Do you have any problem with the Taliban government? And he had to go through interrogatories and really prove that he wasn't there to contest anything. 

So I think the fact that the Taliban truly knew the territory well and the fact that they knew their population better than any government before allowed them to really rise to power. There was also something about the economic model. The main revenues, resources of Afghanistan's economy is rooted in opium production. 

At least for decades it's been the case. And the economy could have been used, the taxes and everything could have been used by the former government to build infrastructure, as Aryan suggested to former President Ghani, to build roads, to really merge regions and bring people together to have a stronger population that really felt that they belong to a population. They didn't do that. 

So it really made way for the Taliban to thrive. And yes, it's been 25 years of organisation and building trust around Afghanistan. The one last thing that I would say is that I would look out for is they recently announced that opium production would become illegal. 

If opium production becomes illegal, then what would happen? How will the economy survive? I mean, from international sanctions that they've been managing quite well to survive, if the whole economy collapses, then I wouldn't see the Taliban thriving much longer. I have one more thing about Afghanistan, actually, is that it's in a region near Pakistan, as we know, and it's in perpetual conflictual relations with Pakistan about who's most legitimate to own the bordering regions, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. And I think this divide and conquer way that the Taliban has been implementing might be undermined by further conflict with their neighbours. 

I know, Dominic, you often say volatility is the cost of doing business. In practical terms, how did you position your clients in 2025 so that they ended up on the bright side of the volatility curve instead of collateral damage? Yeah, I think a really important thing that we can easily do is it's really easy to turn volatility into just a list of excuses and reasons why we couldn't have been prepared. But to be honest, my tolerance of that is quite low. 

I think volatility is, as I mentioned before, is a data point, but it's also an opportunity to look at scenarios. What I'm doing more and more and more is using this volatility into scenarios to challenge executive teams, to challenge board members, to really be digging deeper and to be asking tough questions, to be looking at the financial implications, to be looking at the operational implications. I think making some commitments and pricing geopolitical risk. 

One thing I've done quite a bit this year is helping clients to adjust their expectations, to review contractual terms and to really look at diversification across a whole range from foreign exchange to personnel, to staffing plans, to supply change, to really consider and robustly consider the geopolitical exposures. The environment is volatile. It is really complex. 

And I understand it's difficult for companies to take everything into account. And to be honest, that's why there's people like me and like you that provide that really robust analysis to businesses that can help them look at that. Companies that are really concentrating their business on a few customers or on a few suppliers are really, really putting themselves at risk. 

And I think that's where there needs to be really difficult conversations. And I think pushing boards to be accountable as well. I mean, ultimately, certainly for European companies, there's very clear laws and regulations in place about the responsibilities of board members have. 

And boards have an explicit ownership of the risks that companies do. So I think boards need to be explicitly stating their risk appetite. They need to be endorsing a sort of level of volatility that companies can be operating in and earnings that can be accepted and margins that can be tolerated at certain periods so that the executive team has the strategic freedom to be making the decisions and the agility that they need to be making fast decisions to position their companies for success. 

I think considering people risks, both succession planning, cross training, but also insider risks is something that we're increasingly seeing state sponsored and corporate espionage is alarmingly, alarmingly frequent. And a key data point that we're often referring to is if your company employs more than about 4000 people, you really should assume that you have some level of espionage occurring, some sort of insider threats occurring with inside your company. And that might sound quite significant, but the data backs it up. 

If you've got more than about 4000 people, you probably have a level of either IP leakage, theft, or really significant people concerns within your company. And then finally, it's about rehearsing. We know the volatility is here. 

We know that it's a permanent part of the business operating environment. So rehearsing and practising. And yes, we're busy. 

We're busy with the day to day work. But let's take a little bit of time. It doesn't mean a lot. 

It could be 30 minutes, 60 minutes, once a quarter to run through some pivots, to run through some scenarios and see where the executive team or certain business units are placed on those things. So volatility is here to stay. So we may as well take advantage of it and make sure our companies are best positioned to take advantage of that volatile environment. 

When we think about volatility, Mel, we often think about the Middle East. It really pops to mind quite a lot. And I know that you've organised and done a lot of research with some guests about the current situation in Israel and Egypt and, of course, Palestine. 

People talk about the Middle East being so volatile, but relationships between Israel and Egypt, in some regards, is actually a success story. We've talked about peace for the last four or five decades for what are historically, historically, for thousands of years, been what you might say are enemies. But that's really coming on to fracture now. 

And I had a great conversation with Hesham, an Egyptian diplomat recently that you organised a lot of research on. Were there certain things that you learned about that and that have left you feeling maybe a little bit different about what we're coming out of in 2025 and what 2026 might look like? Absolutely. I mean, when I came up to you with the topic of Egypt-Israel relations, it popped into my mind because I saw articles and even on the news, Egypt was building up more and more military camps in the Sinai. 

And I remembered during my master's at UCL reading about the I remember specifically just how strict the accords were about how many soldiers were able to be in the Sinai, both Israelis and Egyptian soldiers. So when I heard that Israel was complaining officially that Egypt was breaking the accords, I was like, wait a minute, we need to dig into that. Before I researched and did the interview sheet, I had already my guess about that the fact that the peace was durable. 

But Hesham, I think, really helped me understand why it endures. And even during extremely difficult, high pressure moments like the Gaza War. And what I took from your conversation with him was that Egypt truly values stability in the Sinai, non-confrontation, at least with Israel, especially armed ones above all else. 

So the other thing is that Israel values having a predictable neighbour on its border at the south, but also the fact that U.S. incentives, so the military aid and perhaps more importantly, the diplomatic backing, all of that creates strong pressure on both countries to maintain peace or if not peace in the sense of appeasement of tensions, populations not being against one another, which is not the case actually, but at least they're preserving the status quo. The situation is that the relation between the two countries is based on insurance policies. So whatever happens politically or physically, whoever attacks whomever, even with governments changing, both sides are really pushed to preserve the agreement. 

So according to Hesham, Egypt doesn't violate the Chemdevig course, but that's not what official reports say. And whether from independent researchers or the U.S. administration officials or Israeli ones. So that left me with more questions regarding what's really going on in the Sinai and if we should actually fear an open armed conflict to start in the near future, which Hesham is a former diplomat. 

So I know where he's coming from. I know that his position is to preserve the peace or at least the status quo, but I'd love to do another episode on Egypt-Israel relations, maybe with someone who doesn't have any conflicts of interest, who doesn't come from Egypt, who doesn't come from Israel. So I have more questions about that, but also about how the Gaza conflict has shaped Egypt's diplomatic positioning the past four decades or more. 

Prior to the interview, my research showed that Egypt's concern about Gaza's displacement into the Sinai was a real matter and that it should be addressed. But the interview with Hesham made me realise just how sensitive it really was and how much it weighed in the balance of the peace. And we learned that Egypt is on all fronts, basically juggling multiple roles. 

I mean, they're a mediator between Hamas and Israel at times, between Israel and the Arab countries, even though I think it hasn't happened much because it's a dangerous game for Egypt to play as a sovereign within the Middle East and as part of the Arab League. From what I understand, Egypt's strategy is based on separating what their public rhetoric is, the fact that they're against what Israel is doing in Gaza, and also separating it from back-channel diplomacy or cooperation with the U.S. and Israel to preserve the peace, because also they have shared economic interests like the oil contracts. So I think it's a very complicated situation that unfortunately will need much more time and effort from the international community to work on. 

One last thing about Egypt and Israel is that the situation within the Middle East is a broader perspective, but between Egypt and Israel won't become normalised within society as long as the Egyptian population doesn't agree with its own government to have a relation, or at least a seemingly good relations with Israel. And of course, as long as the Palestine question isn't managed, a two-state solution isn't achieved. But Dom, a little further afield from Afghanistan and Egypt, you've spent quite a lot of time in Ukraine this year. 

Can you tell me a little bit about the situation today and what we've learned about Ukraine and, of course, risk resilience? Yeah, thanks for that question. And yeah, your analysis on the situation in the Middle East is really timely, Melinda, and I appreciate hearing your insights on that. So thanks for sharing that. 

And likewise, the situation in Ukraine is also critically important for business leaders right across Europe, but also North America too. I think it's important to actually start with the country that illegally invaded Ukraine, and that's, of course, Russia. And they go into 2025 making some advances on the battlefield, but really not many, but their strategic position is deteriorating extremely fast, whether it's their ability to produce oil, whether it's their currency reserves, whether it's their sovereign wealth fund, which will be empty very, very soon. 

The situation in public opinion is all heading in the wrong direction for the Russian elite. I mean, on the ground, Moscow is pushing really hard around Sumy and Pokrovsk, which are in the east of the country. They're using these large mechanised assaults and continuing this, what they call the meat grinder, where they just sacrifice thousands and thousands of young Russian soldiers. 

By many estimates, for every one square kilometre that Russia takes, they're spending about 100 to 150 lives. So they're 100 to 150 Russian troops are dying for every square kilometre they take. And by UK and European estimates, Russia has lost about 1 million soldiers killed and wounded since the start of the invasion. 

It's sort of really hard to fathom, but we're certainly seeing economically, this fortress Russia is really starting to creak. And there's been countless pieces produced by Russian and Western think tanks that are giving us a really good insight into the country and seeing a lot of weakness showing up there. If we look more strategically, we look geopolitically, I think the biggest shift isn't actually on the ground. 

Ukraine's doing an amazing job holding Russia back on the ground. And in fact, Ukraine's doing an even more impressive job taking the fight into Russia and damaging up to 40% of Russian oil refining capacities, which is huge. But what's much more important is the diplomacy and the money. 

We've seen Trump's team, that Jared Kushner, his property developer son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, his property developer business mate and donor, we've recently found out, a large donor to the Trump campaign, have basically been doing this shuttle diplomacy between Kremlin and DC, and more recently in Florida as well. What they're promoting as a security framework, most people are actually seeing now as property deals and business deals. Russia is trying to escalate its position on the ground, but not making many movements. 

But the actual deals being done about ending the war and achieving peace in Ukraine really just look like a business deal right now with America profiting from it, which is leaving a lot of people scratching their heads. But more importantly, seeing Ukraine being forced to give up land in response to an illegal invasion and then stripping Ukraine of many rights that most countries have, including its forced determination and its ability to defend itself in future. So I think we need to really watch that space really, really closely. 

But Ukraine continues every time, and I've been to Ukraine about four times this year, and every time I come back, whether it's Kharkiv near the frontline, or whether it's Kiev in the capital, I was there when they had the largest ever drone and missile attack. And it's brutal, it's horrible. You wake up in the morning, you see everyone on the streets a little bit bleary eyed, everyone's a bit tired, your mobile phones, your watches, anything electronics not working. 

But people are going about their daily business. You see kids dancing at 10 o'clock just before the curfew and dancing to Buskers. You see little boys and girls holding hands as they're walking on their way to school in the morning. 

I mean, it's just this absolutely beautiful. Restaurants are bustling, you know, art and culture is flourishing. And we had a great conversation about Ukrainian culture on the podcast a couple of weeks ago. 

You know, the resilience in Ukraine is amazing. I almost feel like they're getting more resilient as the war goes on, and the culture is just getting even stronger. So certainly, it's a location and a country and a people that really, really impressed me. 

And I think it's certainly something that we can all learn a lot about. We've had a lot of great guests on the podcast, and you coordinated an excellent interview about France's economic situation being downgraded by Finch. We had a conversation with Susanna Streeter, which was really, really insightful. 

I'd love to hear from you, Mel, about you know, what sort of insights you got from that. I certainly learned a lot from Susanna and the research we did ahead of that conversation. But what were some of the main learnings you got? Prior to the interview, I was obviously as a French person aware of France's fiscal struggles, we'll say. 

But the conversation you had with Susanna really clarified just how much of the downgrade affects France's credibility. And the statement released by Finch this year pointed to the government's limited governance, the rise of pension costs, and obviously the persistent deficit. But what Susanna really emphasised on is the fact that investors for a few months now have been questioning France, now even more than ever, and whether the country can implement the reforms it promises or not. 

So what I got from the episode is that the international financial ratings are basically political judgments and comparison between countries. I mean, we've seen that Germany and the Netherlands have been doing better than ever this year. And it matters a lot for markets. 

I think the lesson was that a downgrade, even of one notch, of course, it won't reorder markets overnight, but it does affect countries' reputations. And to that is added higher borrowing costs. Of course, if the situation doesn't improve, France risks being seen as the permanent high-deficit country of the eurozone. 

So that could influence also, and that's why I called the ratings political judgments. It's because it could influence future debates on EU fiscal rules, for example. France could have a lesser voice. 

So the perception shapes both investor behaviour, more than I realised, and the EU, for example. The main takeaway from the interview is that the debate on the Zuckman tax is not just ideological left versus right, poor versus rich, or workers versus landlords. It's a definition problem. 

It's about what we call super rich or extra rich. It's assets above 100 million euros, according to the tax proposition. And if the tax was ever going to be adopted, there was going to be questions of feasibility to be considered beforehand. 

How do we value assets? And what about capital mobility? Should we fear fiscal evasion even more now? And also there's the question, of course, of coordination across countries, because one country changing its fiscal system won't make a new world, if it aims for that, for a fairer world. Lastly, I'd say that there's a question of where the extra money taken from this tax would be used for. And I think from all the counter arguments I've heard about the Zuckman tax, the lack of trust in government is really what's making people go, I don't trust this Zuckman tax. 

Something's going on there. So, I think it's still to be watched, even though it wasn't adopted by the General Assembly. Thanks for unpacking that, Mel, and thanks very much for your analysis and insight today. 

I really enjoyed our conversation. Absolutely. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to talk for once, instead of just being behind the wheel. 

Thank you for our conversation. I think this has been a lot of fun, Mel, and I think there's a lot more questions I actually have for you. So we might have to do a second episode in the next couple of days. 

I think there's a lot more I'd like to hear from you. Thanks very much for coming on, and thanks very much to our listeners for another great year. And just a reminder that if you prefer to watch your podcast, you can find all that content on YouTube. 

So please go to YouTube and search for The International Whiz Podcast, and remember to hit like and subscribe. It's critical for our success. Mel, thank you very much. 

I'll see you probably tomorrow. Absolutely. Bye-bye. 

Thanks for joining us on The International Whiz Podcast. This episode was sponsored by Conducttr, the crisis exercise platform that turns crisis plans into lived experiences. With tailored scenarios, decision logs, and realistic social media and news feeds, Conducttr helps organisations learn from their mistakes in the simulation, not during the real crisis. 

Have a look at the Conducttr website to learn more about their services and products. Thank you for listening to this episode of The International Risk Podcast.