The Cost of Complacency: Geopolitical Risk and Corporate Security w/Mike Evans

Stefano (0:00)

Today's episode of the BLUF is sponsored by SITREP. SITREP is an Artorias open source intelligent app that provides the latest updates for over 180 countries and over 500 topics, allowing you to stay ahead and informed. Now available on Apple and Google. Thank you SITREP for sponsoring this episode.

Welcome to the Bottom Line Up Front and Artorias Podcast. My name is Stefano, the Chief Intelligence Officer of Artorias. I'm Christian.

Christian (0:30)

I'm the Chief Executive Officer of Artorias.

Stefano (0:33)

Today, we're joined by Mike Evans, an intelligence and security professional with more than 15 years of experience across the military, corporate security, intelligence, and risk sectors.

Most recently, Mike serves as Chief Intelligence Officer at Securitas, leading global intelligence efforts focused on emerging threats, geopolitical risk, and security. Mike, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining us.

Mike Evans (0:56)

Thank you both. Really great to be here and be on the podcast with you today.

Stefano (1:00)

No, I'm glad to have you. Really want to talk about your experience and your expertise. Because one of our last episode we did, we cover really this old but new threat of Russia on the European continent, both against the European Union, NATO and Europe as a whole.

We really wanted to really expand on this much more so from your expertise and everything and the areas that you cover, because we're seeing a lot of developments of Russia increasingly being more brazen and bold in their attacks and hybrid attacks against Europe, targeting not only government institutions, but even corporate and defense manufacturers across Europe, and threatening to increase the uptempo. We've seen NATO and European officials really raise the alarm of this concern in Europe. But obviously, Europe has a broad areas of threat to look at. We see the failure of the Iranian plot against Rafahford. We obviously have the issues of international and domestic terrorism and a whole other swath of issues that we can discuss. Mike, as my first broad question to you and from your background experience, what would you consider right now to be the greatest threat impacting Europe at the moment?

Mike Evans (2:17)

The greatest threat, and this is going to sound a little bit left of field. The greatest threat is actually complacency in Europe.

Increasingly, we're seeing both governments, authorities and businesses starting to maybe talk about and raise awareness and alarm as you've said there about some of the threats that Europe is facing from Russia and other actors, whether they are nation states or non-nation states, proxy actors, current actors, etc. But we're still talking about it. Europe is talking about it, but maybe not necessarily doing enough about it, not turning that insight into action as it were. Complacency is approaching this from the equation of what if rather than what when.

Because sometimes it doesn't have to be the most likely course of action. If the most dangerous course of action was to occur, and you were not prepared, being caught flat-footed would be in a much greater impact than were you able to be prepared for that threat before it was to manifest itself. I think rather than pointing to particular kinetic or non-kinetic threats or threats scenario or vector, I would say complacency is the greatest threat today.

Stefano (3:31)

Let me follow up on that, Mike, because obviously we've seen in the European continent, tumultuous, I wouldn't even say years, even you can make the argument decade with Russia seizing Crimea.

The question that I would have for you based on that complacency is, do you still believe that European governments and corporations are operating in a mindset, let's say, drastically speaking, pre-2014, pre the seizure of Crimea? Or you've noticed maybe a rhetorical change, but there's not an actual effort and physical attempt to change the situation on the ground and it can be used to and prepare for, as you said, either the most dangerous course of.

Mike Evans (4:17)

Yes, I would say that if we look at the history of these types of scenarios, and if I look back at points in my career over the past 10, 15 years in particular, in the private sector, if I look back to, let's say, the Brexit vote for a moment, there were multiple scenarios of what could happen with Brexit, fundamentally two scenarios, in or out. I remember working with some of the senior team in a business at the time to prepare scenario plans, assessments of both an in and an out vote.

There was always the assumption that the out vote, the assessments and the reports would never be needed. Even the day before, even the day before the vote, it was no, it's obviously going to be in, why are we going to need that? I will always fondly remember waking up that next day to a phone call and an email, the mailbox going, hey, can we have that other version of the report, please? It was the same thing then with Russia-Ukraine, which is obviously far more close to home to this conversation today, in the months leading up to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We're producing various products, various reports, and that's different customers, as it were, because it worked with multiple organizations, and there were many, many organizations who were very receptive to that. They were planning for eventualities, the scenarios, most likely, most dangerous wildcard scenarios, right? But there was a few, I would say, thankfully, a very small minority who was staunchly denying that anything would ever happen.