FACTs about theorizing on global strategy amid geopolitical tensions

Abstract Research Summary The geopolitical turmoil of recent decades has heightened uncertainty for multinational enterprises and raised the question whether foundational theories in global strategy retain explanatory power. This article frames a Point‐Counterpoint addressing this question. We situate the debate in the field's reflection on the timeliness of global strategy theories, examine seven foundational theories, and introduce the FACTs about theorizing on global strategy amid geopolitical tensions: four changing contextual conditions around state intervention, which is now Fast and Active, unfolds through distinct Channels, and pursues precise strategic Targets. While the Point suggests that geopolitics requires a major rethinking of existing theory, and the Counterpoint argues existing theories remain valid, we take a third path and offer FACTs as a roadmap for extending existing theories in the field. Managerial Summary Recent geopolitical upheavals are reshaping the environment for multinational enterprises. This article frames an ongoing debate on whether the foundational theories of global strategy still apply and proposes the FACTs of state intervention framework to help managers navigate the new context. State intervention has become Fast, Active (states as strategic players, not just rule‐setters), operating through subtle Channels beyond formal regulation, and pursuing precise Targets in strategic sectors. For managers, this means political feasibility increasingly overrides economic efficiency in entry decisions; reputation and Environmental Social and Governance considerations reshape make‐or‐buy choices; conflicting jurisdictional demands constrain global architecture; digitalization questions the need for physical foreign assets; and within‐country subcultures matter more than national averages. Global strategy can help managers reassess their strategies built on assumptions of an integrated, rule‐based, efficiency‐oriented world order, and prepare for fragmented, security‐driven competition.