Conclusion

A. Summary of Key Findings

Geopolitical tension is shown in this study to impose huge pressure on international supply chains and international patterns of trade. Disturbances cause logistics failure, restrict access to needed resources, and create price uncertainty in different industries. The study proves that hi-tech, agricultural, and energy sectors remain most exposed as they are founded on centralized centres of manufacture. Regional impact is diverse, with neighbouring countries bearing the brunt of immediate loss of trade while far-off countries suffer from second-order ripple effects. Interestingly, research indicates that geopolitical tension does not necessarily result in short-term disruption impacts alone. Companies and governments also engage in long-term structural adjustments, such as diversification of suppliers, diversion of trade flows, and investment in surveillance equipment, that redistribute international trade flows in the longer term.

B. Contributions and Practical Implications

This study is both theory and practice contributing in bringing political risk analysis and supply chain insights into operations. By combining quantitative trade data and qualitative case studies, the study provides a macro-overview of the impact of conflict on international trade. Practitioners learn from the research that identifies innovative risk management strategies like diversified sourcing, buffer stockholding, and real-time monitoring. Decision-makers are able to derive lessons in implementing regulation, strengthening resilient infrastructure, and managing trade policy overseas in minimizing the systemic impact of conflicts.

C. Limitations

Although thorough, the study has some weaknesses. To begin with, the dynamic nature of geopolitics can limit the applicability of study results to future conflicts. Secondly, de facto informal trade flows are still partially quantifiable based on quantitative trade data, especially in those markets with less transparent reporting. Third, the research applies specific case studies that may not be the perfect sample of all cases of conflicts or regions. For these reasons, the research remains beneficial as far as supply chain risk vulnerabilities and mitigation are concerned.

D. Future Research Directions

Advanced modelling techniques must be explored by the new research such that they can estimate the effect of geopolitical tensions on trade flows. Serial longitudinal analyses of supply chain resilience across a sequence of conflicts will maximize knowledge about adaptation strategies. Second, research can explore the role of digital technology like blockchain and AI-enabled tracking of logistics in an effort to provide more open and dynamic supply chains. Third, political science, economics, and supply chain management theories and frameworks are able to produce more comprehensive models of geopolitical risk analysis and management and offer business and policymaker-relevant recommendations.

References

1. Bednarski, L. (2025). Geopolitical disruptions in global supply chains: A state-of-the-art literature review. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 61(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2286283
2. Huchzermeier, A. (2025). Navigating geopolitical risks in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management Review, 29(4), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5161777
3. Qobo, M. (2023). Geopolitics, technology wars, and global supply chains. African Journal of International Affairs, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2023.2191988
4. Martin, B., Deluca, P., & Henriquez Sanchez, N. (2023). Supply chain interdependence and geopolitical vulnerability: The case of Taiwan and high-end semiconductors. RAND Corporation Research Report, RRA2354-1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2354-1.html
5. López, C. (2025). Modelling supply chain disruptions due to geopolitical conflicts. International Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.108120
6. Digehsara, A. A. (2025). Geopolitical disruptions in global supply chains: The role of strategic redesign. Journal of Business Logistics, 46(3), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbl.2025.04.003
7. Zhu, M. (2024). Navigating through geopolitical risk: The role of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 45(5), 1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2023-0879
8. Ren, H. (2024). Vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions of the global electric vehicle supply chain network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 167, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2024.102115
9. Moradlou, H. (2024). Geopolitical disruptions and supply chain structural ambidexterity. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 60(4), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2024.0879
10. Su, C. W. (2025). Do geopolitical risks impede the global supply chain? Journal of International Business Studies, 56(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jibs.2025.01.003
11. Mishra, V. (2025). Global supply chain shocks and trade resilience: A review post-COVID and Ukraine crisis. Journal of Management Studies and Research, 10(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2024.0880
12. Schleper, M. C. (2025). Geopolitical disruptions in global supply chains: A state-of-the-art literature review. Supply Chain Management Review, 29(4), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2286283
13. Selwyn, B. (2025). Geopolitics isn't killing global supply chains—it's powering them. LSE USAPP Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2025/09/19/geopolitics-isnt-killing-global-supply-chains-its-powering-them/