2026: Looking Ahead
Well, the year's already off to a banger...
2026 is shaping to be a consequential year—even more so than the last, which brought back the disruption of Trump, supercharged; exposed an increasingly confident China, including its undermining of Western industrial capability; saw a shocking terrorist attack in Australia; observed the emergence of new AI models…and (unrelated to all these) the re-election of the Albanese government.
In amongst the trials and tribulations of the last 12 months, we’re grateful to have had you along with us writing on dozens of geostrategic issues and challenges. As we’ve come into 2026, Geomastery Advisory has turned two, with GeoMissives almost two as well.
Let’s review of a few of the key themes that have underpinned GeoMissives over the last couple of years.
Where we have been
First, cyber security is not just a technical issue but—done well—of fundamental value of democratic societies. After all, security and privacy are indivisible, such that better privacy protections are essential for ensuring national security.
Similarly, Australia needs to adhere to ‘secure-by-design’ and ‘security-by default’ AND ‘privacy-by design’ and ‘privacy-by-default’ standards for IoT devices and critical infrastructure to prevent external interference in democratic processes.
Second, there’s digital sovereignty and technology ‘taking’. Australia is a ‘majority taker’ of technology rather than a maker, which poses specific challenges for Australian democracy. It doesn’t have to be that way, and probably shouldn’t, at least not to the extent that it is. Perhaps a more supportive regulatory and cultural environment for Australia’s entrepreneurs would help.
In any case, majority reliance on foreign-designed hardware and software means that Australia must work hard align its standards with other nations that share democratic interests to avoid being vulnerable to the ‘authoritarian’ influence embedded in certain tech infrastructures.
Third, Australia faces a wide spectrum of ‘grey zone’ threats—that is, actions that fall below the threshold of open warfare but aim to undermine democratic institutions. Worse, it faces a meta-threat: that such ‘below-threshold’ activities are normalised, even excused, in public discussion.
Democracy is a process, an ongoing journey, not an end-state. Nor is it the single preserve of an elite in Canberra or state capitals. It can never be taken for granted: a democratic state depends on many variables and as such it can be robust, or if mismanaged, fragile.
Grey zone threats need to be better understood and addressed, especially because they are channelled through and affect broad aspects of the economy and community. There are few means—outside the national security apparatus, which may be maladaptive—to coordinate resilience and the strengthening of democratic norms and institutions. And as we have seen, for example, with former Prime Minister Morrison’s secret acquisition of other ministries, Australia’s own democratic representatives can fail that test as well.
That suggests Australia’s democracy may be more precarious than we assume. Some institutions—such as the Australian Electoral Commission—are strong, and set a standard for other democracies, but our assumptions, norms and institutions are being tested by rapid technological change, the erosion of ‘citizen-government trust’ and an ‘inward turn’ in politics. And that, in turn, offer opportunities for adversaries.
Fourth, there’s our concern that the Australian government’s approach to the challenges at hand favours legislation over, for example structural reform or increased agency for citizens and non-government organisations, from community groups to entrepreneurs and SMEs.
Overly complex and sometimes contradictory regulations can diminish clarity and freedom, ironically creating more security risks. And more often than not, the ledger is set against preserving democratic freedoms and civil liberties, especially when matters may touch on national security.
Transparency and trust also go hand in hand. We need ‘bi-directional transparency,’ where the government must earn the trust of the private sector and the community through accountability, engagement, and public interest verification, rather than demanding it through regulation.
Further, there is little appreciation, or concern, inside government for the regulatory burden and transfer of risk placed on individuals and SMEs: for all the announcements, it is our observation that procurement, freedom of information and consultation has worsened overall rather than improved.
Last, the end of the rules-based order and increasing contestation and chaos. Many of our Missives, especially the Weekly Drop, addressed events away from Australia, including:
Ukraine, the scene of a hot war with real implications for Australia, both strategically and in terms of evolving operations and technologies of warfare;
The control of strategic points, such as the Red Sea, to infrastructure, such as undersea cables, and technologies such as quantum and AI; and,
Africa, where another ‘great game’ over resources and influence between the major powers is underway.
We’ve been highlighting such events—the latest of which is the Trump Administration’s abduction of a foreign head of state—as we believe they foreshadow competition, and conflict, in the more turbulent and dangerous era we are living through. The leaders of the main global powers—the EU aside—all believe in the primacy of power and of personal interest. Australia cannot hide from such contests: a fundamental, even frightening, question for us is whether Australian decision-makers grasp the magnitude of the challenges, let alone whether we are prepared for them.
To paraphrase Trotsky, ‘Australia may not be interested in war, but war will be interested in it.’
Where to from here?
Because of our outlook, our experience and our commitment to Australian democracy and security, we are working on a couple of initiatives.
Our sister company, Statekraft, launches its first app in two weeks. That’s aimed at strengthening Australian democracy and transparency in public policy, and we urge you all to visit the website and sign up.
The second initiative reflects our concern that we need a broader capability uplift and better connective tissue between government, industry and the community, between research, policy and practice, and thus improved transparency and trust in our democracy. That means the next evolution in GeoMissives. We’ll let you know about that shortly.
Here’s to (an already wildly gyrating) 2026. Happy new year.