Parliament passes landmark has moved to the centre of the policy debate. Interviews with security officials suggest a growing recognition that deterrence must be paired with resilience. Hardening critical infrastructure, rehearsing crisis responses and communicating clearly with the public are no longer optional extras.

The economic stakes are considerable. Conservative estimates suggest that disruption on this scale could shave between 0.3 and 0.7 percentage points off regional growth next year, with the heaviest burden falling on import-dependent economies and low-income households.

Lessons from history

The private sector has emerged as an unexpectedly important actor. Companies with global footprints increasingly find themselves making decisions with geopolitical consequences, often without clear guidance from governments.

The legal framework has struggled to keep pace. Existing rules were designed for a different era and leave significant grey areas, particularly where state and non-state actors operate in the same space or where activity crosses multiple jurisdictions.

We are moving from an era of managing crises to an era of living with permanent disruption. Institutions need to be designed for that reality.

Our analysis of open-source data covering the past eighteen months points to a clear inflection point in the second quarter, when the frequency of reported incidents more than doubled. That trend has since plateaued, but at a level well above the pre-crisis baseline. This is where questions of parliament passes landmark become most acute.

The economic dimension

History offers some guidance, though not much comfort. Previous episodes of this kind were resolved only after a combination of sustained external pressure and a shift in domestic incentives — conditions that do not yet appear to be in place.

  • Short term: contain immediate risks and protect the most exposed groups.
  • Medium term: strengthen coordination and information-sharing between agencies.
  • Long term: invest in resilience, diversification and institutional capacity.

Not everyone shares this assessment. Some analysts contend that the risks have been overstated and that markets have already priced in most of the downside. The evidence for this more optimistic view is real, but it rests on assumptions about stability that recent events have repeatedly challenged.

Officials familiar with the discussions describe a process that has moved faster than many observers expected, driven less by diplomatic breakthroughs than by mounting domestic pressure in several key capitals. The result is a fragile consensus that could unravel if economic conditions deteriorate further.

Risks to watch

At the international level, the picture is mixed. While multilateral forums have produced statements of shared concern, concrete commitments — on funding, on verification, on enforcement — remain thin.

Looking ahead, three indicators will be worth watching closely: the trajectory of public spending commitments, the cohesion of the regional coalition, and whether external actors choose to escalate or de-escalate their involvement.

The policy response

Local communities, meanwhile, are adapting in ways that rarely make headlines. Municipal authorities, civil-society groups and private firms have developed informal networks that in some cases respond faster than national institutions.

Critics argue that the current approach treats symptoms rather than causes. In interviews with more than two dozen practitioners, a recurring theme emerged: coordination between agencies remains weak, and information is still shared on a case-by-case basis rather than systematically. For more context, see our research library.