Cyber Security in an Era of Geopolitical Instability

This article considers how geopolitical instability is influencing cyber risk exposure for organisations. It outlines emerging threat patterns and the governance steps needed to strengthen resilience.

Cyber conflict is no longer a distant concern reserved for governments and defence contractors. It is persistent, scalable, and increasingly woven into global politics. As geopolitical tensions intensify, cyber operations are routinely used to gather intelligence, disrupt services, and apply strategic pressure.

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has repeatedly warned that periods of international instability are often accompanied by heightened malicious cyber activity targeting UK organisations. Across Europe, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) continues to report sustained growth in state-linked and politically motivated cyber campaigns.

If your organisation depends on digital infrastructure, cloud services, or international supply chains, geopolitical cyber risk is already a board-level issue.

Cyber Operations as a Tool of State Power

Cyber activity is now embedded within national strategy. The UK Government’s Integrated Review refresh makes clear that hostile states are investing heavily in cyber capability as part of broader security and economic objectives.

Unlike traditional conflict, cyber operations are:

Difficult to attribute with certainty
Low cost relative to physical operations
Capable of causing widespread disruption quickly.

According to the Microsoft Digital Defence Report, state-affiliated actors are increasingly using automation and AI-enhanced tooling to scale reconnaissance, credential harvesting, and exploitation. This reduces the time between vulnerability discovery and active compromise.

The consequence is a threat environment that moves faster than many organisations can respond.

You Do Not Need to Be the Primary Target

A common misconception is that only government departments or critical national infrastructure providers are at risk. In reality, many organisations suffer as secondary or opportunistic victims.

Recent threat landscape reporting from ENISA highlights the growing prevalence of hybrid campaigns that combine cyber operations with disinformation and political pressure. These campaigns often target:

Energy and utilities providers
Financial services firms
Logistics and transport operators
Technology and telecommunications suppliers.

However, supply chain compromise remains a key tactic. An attacker may breach a smaller professional services firm to access a larger client. They may target a software vendor to compromise multiple downstream customers.

In this environment, exposure is often indirect but no less damaging.

Common Patterns in Geopolitical Cyber Activity

While tactics evolve, several patterns are consistently observed during periods of escalation:

Distributed denial-of-service attacks aimed at disrupting public services and online platforms
Destructive or wiper malware designed to render systems inoperable
Targeted phishing campaigns against executives and privileged users
Credential theft to enable long-term espionage or lateral movement.

The NCSC has stressed that organisations should assume increased cyber activity during geopolitical crises and ensure that fundamental controls are in place.

These are not theoretical scenarios. They are repeatedly documented across annual reviews and threat assessments.

The Regulatory and Reputational Impact

Operational disruption is only one dimension of the risk. A significant cyber incident may trigger regulatory notification requirements under UK data protection law. It may result in contractual penalties, shareholder scrutiny, and reputational harm.

Regulators increasingly expect organisations to demonstrate that appropriate technical and organisational measures were in place before an incident occurred. In a climate of geopolitical escalation, failing to account for elevated threat levels may be difficult to justify.

Cyber preparedness is therefore not simply an IT issue. It is a governance obligation.

What Organisations Should Be Doing Now

Preparation begins with realism. Leaders must acknowledge that geopolitical cyber escalation can affect private sector organisations without warning.

Boards should receive regular reporting on threat exposure, control maturity, and recovery capability. Incident response and business continuity plans must be tested under realistic conditions, including scenarios involving widespread service disruption. Privileged access should be tightly controlled and monitored. Backups must be immutable, regularly tested, and independently verified. Supply chain risk assessments should be refreshed to identify concentration risk and systemic dependencies.

Threat intelligence monitoring should inform executive decision-making, not sit in a technical silo. The organisations that navigate periods of instability most effectively are those that treat cyber resilience as an enterprise capability rather than a compliance exercise.

From Escalation to Resilience

Geopolitical cyber risk is unlikely to diminish. Global competition, economic uncertainty, and regional conflicts all contribute to an environment where digital operations are a preferred instrument of influence and disruption.

The question is not whether tensions will rise again; the question is whether your organisation can absorb the shock when they do.

Cybersecurity audits, penetration testing, resilience validation, and independent risk review are no longer discretionary enhancements. They are central to operational stability.

Geopolitical cyber escalation may be outside your control, but your readiness is not.

How AJC Can Help

Geopolitical cyber risk requires structured oversight, demonstrable assurance, and governance that reflects elevated threat conditions.

AJC supports organisations in reviewing whether their cyber risk management frameworks remain aligned to the current geopolitical environment. We assess the robustness of governance structures, the clarity of accountability, and the effectiveness of control validation processes to ensure that resilience claims are evidence-based and defensible.

Our approach focuses on independent assurance, regulatory alignment, and strengthening organisational oversight. In periods of heightened instability, confidence must be grounded in demonstrable preparedness.

Cyber escalation may be unpredictable, but governance maturity should not be.

Contact us on 020 7101 4861 or email us at info@ajollyconsulting.co.uk if you think we can help.

Sources:

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-threat-landscape-2023

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/annual-review-2023

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/threat-landscape/microsoft-digital-defense-report-2023

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-cybersecurity-outlook-2026/digest/

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/geopolitics-ai-fraud-global-cyber-cybersecurity-2026/

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/cybersecurity/microsoft-digital-defense-report-2025/

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/the-leadership-agenda/global-digital-trust-insights-2026.html