Arne Westad talks his best-selling book for The Argyle Group.

For decades, international relations were defined by relatively predictable structures. The Cold War gave us a rigid but legible bipolarity; the decades that followed ushered in an era of undisputed American hegemony.

Today that familiar terrain has vanished.

In a recent conversation, historian and global strategist Arne Westad shared his insights on his latest book tour, which has been making major waves across the globe, earning spots on McKinsey's reading list and seeing JP Morgan purchase copies for its entire workforce.

Westad warns that the world has rapidly accelerated into a complex multipolar system that no living person has experienced before. And to understand where we are going, Westad argues, we must look to the period just before 1914.

The Ultimate Historical Analogy: Pre-1914 vs. Today

While historians are naturally cautious about drawing overly tidy or deterministic parallels, Westad finds the structural similarities between our current moment and the early 20th century to be deeply striking.

There are always aspects of almost any international system that look slightly similar to today. But if you look at this as a whole... those comparisons are much less systemically relevant than what you find when you look at the early 20th century.

The core of Westad's warning lies in the shared systemic complacency of both eras. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, global powers discovered too late that the international system had shifted in unforeseen directions. They struggled to play catch-up with a new reality and, as the First World War brutally demonstrated, they failed.

Today, particularly in the West, there remains a dangerous assumption that the world will eventually revert to a “normal” state of unipolarity or bipolarity. Westad insists it won't. The multipolar world is not a looming possibility; it is already here, and the transition has happened much faster than even he had anticipated when he began writing the book.

Ground-Level Perspectives: The Diversity of China

If given a sabbatical tomorrow, Westad wouldn't spend it in the corridors of power. He would spend it travelling through China, a nation he views as absolutely essential to the future of global affairs.

Importantly, Westad emphasises that you cannot understand a country by staying in the highlight-reel cities. “All politics are local,” he says. The stark regional differentiation in China, such as the generational gap between the wealthy Pearl River Delta and the deeply impoverished areas of northern “upstate” Guangdong, creates vastly different local conversations, disillusionments, and priorities.

Despite an increasingly difficult political climate, Westad notes that the Chinese people remain open and eager to engage in robust discussions, engagement, and commerce with foreigners. Understanding these local nuances is critical, as the Asia-Pacific has replaced Europe as the primary engine of world economic development and, consequently, the primary zone of risk.

Underrecognised Risks and the Black Swan Threat

When looking at contemporary threats, ranging from artificial intelligence to non-conventional warfare and volatile domestic politics, Westad is most preoccupied by Black Swan events: unpredictable incidents that erupt out of high baseline levels of structural tension, only to spiral rapidly out of control.

In 1914, the baseline tension was ignited by a singular terrorist act in Sarajevo. Today, East Asia sits on a similar powder keg. While Taiwan dominates global headlines, Westad points to a different, more volatile flashpoint: Korea.

Westad is convinced the North Korean regime will eventually collapse in one form or another, and the international community is profoundly unprepared for the fallout. North Korea is a heavily armed nuclear state sitting at a vital strategic intersection between China, Japan, Russia, and the United States. The sheer unmanageability of a North Korean collapse mirrors the 1914 crisis between Austria and Serbia, where a localised conflict became so rapidly complicated that great powers could not find a uniform direction to contain it.

The Illusion of Nuclear Deterrence

Crucially, Westad's research challenged his own assumptions about the stabilising power of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, superpower bipolarity built a grim predictability into nuclear deterrence. Today, ongoing global proliferation and the development of “battlefield-use” tactical nuclear weapons have eroded that safety net. Westad no longer believes the mere existence of nuclear weapons guarantees that great powers will not go to war with one another.

In fact, the acceleration toward today's dangerous multipolar world has been driven by rapid shifts in great power behaviour. Westad points to an array of factors, including the shifting landscape of American politics, China's growing assertiveness, and widening fractures between Europe and the U.S.

However, the breakdown of the international order is also a consequence of unilateral actions that set dangerous precedents. Westad highlights recent geopolitical flashpoints, including the unprovoked, independent actions taken by major states, as symptomatic of this shift. When powerful nations act with complete disregard for the United Nations, international consultation, or traditional alliances, it signals a change in the global mode of operation. It normalises a dangerous rationale for other ambitious powers: if they can do it, so can we.

The Dilemma of Middle Powers

This eroding rules-based order places middle powers, such as Brazil, the UAE, or Australia, in a precarious and complex position.

While some strategists argue that multipolarity opens up lucrative economic opportunities by allowing middle powers to play larger states off one another, Westad urges caution. Australia represents the quintessential middle state dilemma: it maintains ironclad security ties with the United States while remaining deeply integrated economically with China. It has no ability to play one off against the other, but instead finds itself paralysed by this contradiction at the heart of its statecraft, mustering unconvincing rationales to other countries and to its own people.

For countries navigating this new epoch, Westad offers two central pieces of advice:

Acknowledge that time is up. A generation ago, middle powers operating under a unipolar umbrella could afford to believe that if a crisis emerged, they would have ample time to prepare, adapt, and pivot. Today, that buffer zone has vanished; crisis scenarios that were unthinkable a few years ago are now immediate possibilities.

Take security into your own hands. This does not mean throwing away existing international alliances or commitments. Rather, it requires middle powers to deliberately and diligently plan for their own defence. National security planning must be explicitly tailored to immediate, short-run threats rather than relying on the guaranteed intervention of a global hegemon.

Navigating an Unpredictable Map

Arne Westad's historical lens provides a sobering reality check for the modern world. The comforting architecture of the late 20th-century international system is gone, replaced by a fluid, highly volatile multipolar landscape. Whether looking at the regional economic disparities within China, the nuclear wildcard of the Korean peninsula, or the defence strategies of middle powers, the message remains uniform: complacency is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Modern organisations have built extensive risk management systems. Yet Bradley is skeptical that formal processes capture what matters most. “We have built into companies complex risk management frameworks, policies, and reporting, which often misses the mark on important things, particularly those going to reputation.”

White Space and Verification

For that reason, he believes boards must step back from the formal agenda and create what he calls “white space.” A moment to ask broader questions. “What are all the things that we are worried about? What are the things that could go wrong? What are the big decisions that we're making? And do we really have solid grounds for making an assessment on those issues?”

The consequences of failing to probe can be severe. Bradley points to the Australian Wheat Board case, where a chairman heard credible information that the company may have breached United Nations sanctions. He asked management whether there was any basis for the concern. The answer was “no.” He did not investigate further. The company later imploded, senior executives went to prison, and the chairman was found guilty of failing to fulfil his duty of care.

The lesson, Bradley says, is clear. “You must take action to do more than simply ask management if there is a matter of significant reputation or financial risk that comes to your attention.” Directors cannot rely solely on filtered assurances.

At the same time, they must not become entangled in operational detail. Bradley favours a phrase he has long admired. Directors should have “fingers out, but noses in.” Close enough to smell what is happening in the organisation, but not interfering in it.

An Era of Deeper Risk

Having spent part of his career as a partner at McKinsey, Bradley reflects on the limits of traditional advisory models. In his time, “things like evaluating the quality of management, assisting with the vetting of candidates for senior positions… or evaluating the potential risks of the people that you are dealing with in the business” were not seen as areas where the firm had particular authority. The consulting firm advised the institution, not the individuals within it.

Today, the environment is different. Bradley describes it as “the era of the deep fake when it comes to information.” Artificial intelligence makes it easier “to perpetrate frauds, be that in relation to individuals or organisations.” Information moves faster, but it is not necessarily more reliable.

At the same time, business is increasingly shaped by international sanctions regimes. Exposure does not arise only from direct transactions. It can sit in beneficial ownership structures, minority shareholdings, or informal affiliations that are not immediately visible. As Bradley notes, companies must understand not only who they are dealing with, but “the wider tentacles of relationships with the people they're dealing with.”

In such an environment, surface level assurance is rarely sufficient. Documentation can be fabricated. Ownership can be layered. Reputational risk can emerge from connections that do not appear in formal reporting. The burden on directors is not simply to absorb information, but to determine which information can be trusted and what remains unseen.

In that context, he believes “the ability to bring to the client deeper intelligence from very informed but discreet sources can be critically important in top level decision about a company's strategy or its personnel.”

On Joining The Argyle Group

Bradley is direct about why he chose to join The Argyle Group.

I very much believe there is a value-adding role for a group such as The Argyle Group. We are living in far more challenging times than at any time, I think, in my career. We're in the era of the deep fake when it comes to information. We're in the era of artificial intelligence that can make it that much easier to perpetrate frauds, be that in relation to individuals or organizations. We're in an era when far more business is affected by things like international sanctions, where it's critically important that companies understand who they're dealing with and the wider tentacles of relationships with the people they're dealing with. So all of that is tremendously more important than it has been earlier on in my career. For that reason, I thought what Argyle's doing is a place where I can make a contribution, in as much as I can help frame the issues that a client should be concerned about in the current business environment, based on my many years of board and consulting experience and my role as a CEO.

He adds:

I know how lonely it can be to have to make decisions or make recommendations to a board without, in some cases, the time or the ability to fully analyse all the risks involved. The Argyle Group is the answer.

Perspective and Prediction

When asked what he would do if forced to take a year-long sabbatical, something he has never had, Bradley begins with daydreams. “Spending a year in Italy to learn Italian cooking and enjoy the dolce vita.” Or perhaps learning to be “a theatrical director… or a film director.” But, he adds, “what I would do, realistically, is… write a semi-autobiographical book on how life in Australia has changed since I was born. And mostly changed for the better.” The instinct is reflective rather than escapist.

That long view shapes his fearless prediction for the next twelve months. “One of the biggest changes that will happen in the next 12 months will be the millions of jobs that will be disrupted by generative artificial intelligence.” Administrative, legal, accounting, financial and even medical roles will be “profoundly disruptive and will need to change and adapt.”

Yet he is not pessimistic. “The history of almost every technology revolution since 1820 has been that every new technology creates many more jobs than it displaces,” he says. There is always “a difficult transition involved in technology change, and this is a big one, and it's a quick one.”

Across the conversation, one point returns quietly. Directors depend on information provided to them, yet remain accountable for the consequences.

Formal processes provide structure. They do not eliminate uncertainty, nor do they always capture the risks that sit beyond formal reporting.

Judgment cannot be delegated.

Careful analysis of traditional data is table stakes, but rarely a source of advantage. Advantage often lies in making sound, incisive judgments about people and how they will make decisions under various scenarios.

That belief underpins Convolo Group's long-term capital model. In markets where family- and founder-owned businesses dominate, traditional fund structures often clash with owners' horizons. The result is not a lack of opportunity, but a mismatch between capital and ambition.

Our focus on providing long-term capital to family and founder owners places a premium on building enduring partnerships. That discipline requires an assessment of character and judgment that extends well beyond conventional diligence.

This is where human intelligence becomes decisive.

In one transaction, Gandevia describes how intelligence validated judgments his team had spent months forming.

What surprised us was not that our conclusions were confirmed, but how quickly and accurately they were validated. In a matter of weeks, we confirmed judgments it had taken us months to form.

The value lies not only in speed, but in depth. Conventional frameworks often assume rational decision-making. In practice, markets are shaped by emotion, personal history, incentives, and unspoken pressures.

Strategy frameworks can be fragile because they assume rational decision-making. In our experience, understanding the non-rational drivers embedded in people and markets is central to sound risk assessment. Said differently — strategies are built on rationality. Risk commonly isn't.

These are not insights that surface in formal interviews or reference checks. They require unguarded conversations, triangulated perspectives, and the trust that allows people to speak candidly.

The most critical judgments are often the least amenable to a spreadsheet. They are difficult to form, difficult to validate, and yet can be disproportionate in their impact on long-term outcomes.

For long-term investors, culture becomes a critical source of value creation.

Strategies can be adapted to meet changing conditions. Culture tends to persist.

We begin and end each interview the same way. At the outset, we ask how our interviewees would spend a year-long sabbatical. Gandevia speaks about travelling slowly with his family to three cities at different edges of the world, and living long enough in each to stop being a visitor.

The aim wouldn't be sightseeing, but understanding: how people live, what they value, what they fear, and what quietly unites us.

We close with a final question: What are your fearless predictions for the next twelve months?

By the end of 2026, the West will have largely come to terms with Asia's leadership in the real economy, including in technologically advanced manufacturing. AI development will turn away from marginal intelligence gains toward marginal utility and adoption, accelerating the rise of open-source ecosystems. At the same time, the U.S. dollar will continue to weaken, shaped by ongoing policy volatility and a growing recognition of an impending multipolar global system.

For decision-makers facing irreversible choices, this distinction matters. The difference between good outcomes and enduring ones often comes down to whether leaders have the conviction to act on what truly matters, even when it cannot be neatly quantified.

At The Argyle Group, we see this challenge repeatedly. When the stakes are highest and uncertainty cannot be eliminated, qualitative insight becomes a critical source of clarity. It is often the difference between confidence borrowed from models and conviction earned through understanding.