Weaponised uncertainty
In a world already shaped by volatility, the idea that uncertainty itself might be useful feels unsettling. Yet that is exactly the argument made by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in an interview with The Economist. Greer suggested that there is value in uncertainty. Others go further, arguing that during the current U.S. presidency, unpredictability is not a flaw of policy but one of its most powerful tools – keeping allies, rivals, and markets perpetually guessing.
This raises an uncomfortable question for leaders and strategists: What happens when uncertainty is no longer an external condition to manage, but a deliberate strategy – one that pushes previously unthinkable outcomes onto the table?
Traditional planning struggles here. But scenario planning – often misunderstood as a way of predicting multiple futures – may be uniquely suited to an age of weaponised uncertainty.
From risk to strategy: How uncertainty became weaponised
Most organisations are used to dealing with uncertainty as a background condition. Markets fluctuate. Technologies evolve. Political cycles turn. These are familiar, if uncomfortable, features of the landscape.
Weaponised uncertainty is different. Here, ambiguity is produced on purpose, not merely to confuse, but to expand the range of outcomes others feel compelled to consider. What was once treated as unthinkable is no longer ruled out. Signals are mixed. Commitments are reversible. Intentions are obscured. The goal is not clarity, but leverage, forcing others to delay decisions, hedge excessively, or make concessions simply to reduce their exposure to the unknown.
Trade policy is an especially fertile arena for this approach. Tariffs can be announced, withdrawn, threatened again, or selectively enforced. Rules can be treated as negotiable. Outcomes depend less on formal frameworks than on personal leverage and timing.
The effect is chilling. Investment slows. Alliances strain. Long-term planning becomes risky. And those most committed to predictability often suffer the most.
Why forecasting fails when the guessing is the point
Forecasting models that aim to identify the most likely outcome based on trends and historical patterns are particularly vulnerable when the unthinkable is no longer excluded. Forecasting struggles in this environment because its core assumptions no longer hold:
- Intent is assumed to be stable: When actors signal a willingness to cross previously unthinkable lines, intent becomes an unreliable anchor.
- Signals are assumed to be informative: Sometimes they are sent to confuse, not to inform.
- Consistency is assumed over time: When restraint is no longer guaranteed, past behaviour loses its predictive value.
In this environment, asking “What is most likely to happen?” becomes less useful than asking “What range of things could plausibly happen, and what would we do then?” This is where scenario planning enters the frame.
Scenario planning is not about prediction
Scenario planning is often mistaken for sophisticated forecasting. In reality, it does something far more radical: it decouples preparation from prediction. Instead of trying to guess the future, scenario planning outlines several distinct, plausible worlds each shaped by different assumptions about power, rules, behaviour, and intent. The focus is not on which future is “right,” but on whether current strategies are robust across multiple futures.
In an era of weaponised uncertainty, this distinction matters enormously. If unpredictability is being used as leverage, then the goal is to make others reactive. Scenario planning undermines that by creating preparedness in advance.
Scenario planning as a counter-weapon
When uncertainty is deliberate, scenario planning becomes more than a planning tool. It becomes a form of strategic defence. It helps in four critical ways:
- It reduces paralysis
Weaponised uncertainty aims to make actors wait for clarity that never comes. Scenarios allow leaders to act without certainty, because responses have already been rehearsed. - It exposes asymmetries
Scenarios reveal where uncertainty hurts you most (and where it hurts your counterpart more). Not all ambiguity is equally damaging. - It shifts the strategic question
From “What will they do?” to “What kind of world are we in if they do this, and can we live with it?” - It builds institutional confidence
Teams that have imagined disruption are less likely to overreact when it arrives.
In short, scenario planning turns ambiguity from a threat into a manageable condition.
The psychological dimension of scenario planning
There is a further, often overlooked benefit to scenario planning: it improves the quality of decision-making under pressure. Uncertainty is not just economic or political: it is also psychological. Constant ambiguity breeds anxiety, encourages short time horizons, and amplifies reactions to the latest signal.
Scenario planning changes this dynamic. It works by expanding mental space. It makes uncertainty visible, discussable, and therefore manageable. Futures that might otherwise provoke fear are encountered first as thought experiments.
Beyond guessing games
If uncertainty has become a strategy, then seeking perfect clarity is a losing game. When uncertainty is weaponised, the strategic advantage shifts to those who have already done the uncomfortable work of thinking the unthinkable and decided in advance how they would respond.
Scenario planning does not make the world more predictable. But it does make organisations more resilient, more deliberate, and less vulnerable to coercion through ambiguity. In an age where keeping the world guessing is a form of power, the most strategic response may be simple: Stop guessing and start preparing.
Arto Kaunonen
Founder, Senior Partner, KM, MBA
+358 50 356 0717
arto.kaunonen@capful.fi
