# Peter Jansen

Peter Jansen writes The Airlock, a briefing on geopolitics, technology and supply-chain resilience. Their posts examine how energy, manufacturing and critical infrastructure shape geopolitical risk, and how organizations can prepare for a more fragmented world.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/peter-jansen/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petejansen
- LinkedIn followers: 24,724
- Topics: supply-chain, supply-chain-resilience
- Based on 14 dated posts, latest 2026-09-28

## Summary

Most useful for systems-focused briefings on geopolitical risk, sovereign infrastructure, and physical supply-chain dependencies.

- Best for: Risk advisory or strategy consultancy guest briefings on sovereign infrastructure and supply-chain resilience.
- Not for: Consumer-facing short-form video campaigns judged on reach, clicks, and direct signups.
- Check first: Confirm evidence of an operating system and audience demographics before committing budget.

### Takeaways

- Link Taiwanese semiconductor production to Middle Eastern energy logistics and South American mineral extraction.
- Propose regional systems combining local power, food production, and computing capacity.
- Check emotionally charged information against satellite imagery and primary records.

## Main ideas

- **Build local "cellular citadels" instead of choosing collapse or global integration**: Jansen's most consistent argument is that the useful response to global instability is neither total chaos nor utopian globalism. Regions should build dense, self-contained local units that can keep operating when trade, fuel, food and computing flows are disrupted. These units connect through encrypted knowledge networks. The case is physical rather than ideological: a local node with its own energy, calories and compute can absorb shocks that a globally dependent one cannot.
- **Treat energy, calories and computing as one independence stack**: Jansen treats three inputs as a connected resilience problem, not separate sectors. A region that secures power but still imports food or computing capacity remains exposed. Because each depends on external flows and fragile infrastructure, securing one without the others leaves a critical gap.
- **Judge geopolitical risk by physical production, not declared intentions**: A repeated argument is that industrial output, energy access and material flows matter more than diplomatic language and historical sentiment. Jansen describes a shift from a policed world to a partitioned one run by what they call sovereign landlords, and urges decisions based on measurable production capacity rather than announced positions. The method is to look for the physical capacity and flows that would make a claim actionable.
- **Map supply chains as interconnected systems and test decisions in short cycles**: Jansen argues that linear, single-sector risk models fail in interconnected crises. The proposed method is to identify hidden leverage points across energy markets, semiconductor fabrication and resource processing, then use short conditional windows such as 90-day cycles to limit exposure during complex negotiations. This applies the infrastructure theme to practical decision-making under uncertainty.
- **Treat emotionally charged information as a weapon and verify against physical evidence**: One post shifts from infrastructure to how operators read the news. Jansen says feeds that deliver immediate moral superiority or existential rage operate like weapons. The proposed verification protocol: pause at emotional spikes, ask who benefits from the reaction, then check claims against geolocated footage, satellite imagery, physical supply-chain flows, primary financial statements and opposing perspectives. The same evidence-first priority runs through the infrastructure arguments.
- **Prioritize operational directives over commentary**: Jansen's posts aim to prompt action, not analyze for its own sake. Most follow a pattern: a thesis line, a reference to a dated Airlock installment, then three bulleted directives or principles. The directives are phrased as actions, making priorities part of the recurring message.

## Work to read

- [Complex, interconnected supply line crises cannot be solved using linear 20th-century paradigms](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petejansen_complex-interconnected-supply-line-crises-activity-7503406858825809922-_Is5)
- [When narratives clash with industrial production, physics wins every time](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petejansen_when-narratives-clash-with-industrial-production-activity-7509205624228982784-mKjb)
- [The future belongs to the Cellular Citadels](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petejansen_the-future-belongs-to-the-cellular-citadels-activity-7507755881149886464-n9vc)
- [Reject the binary choice between total chaos and utopian globalism](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petejansen_reject-the-binary-choice-between-total-chaos-activity-7496159113354145794-EgzO)
- [If an information feed delivers immediate moral superiority or existential rage, it is operating as a weapon](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petejansen_if-an-information-feed-delivers-immediate-activity-7510296181189562369-gbBr)

## Brand relationships

- **The Airlock** (owned_business)

## Partnerships

The posts contain no published partnership or sponsorship program for Peter Jansen. Each ends with the same call to action: subscribe to The Airlock, their weekly briefing on the collision of geopolitics and sovereign technology, through a newsletter signup link. None names a sponsor, discloses a paid partnership, describes a media kit, rate card or ad format, or offers a contact route for brands. For buyers, the practical opening is their newsletter audience rather than defined sponsorship inventory, so any collaboration would have to be negotiated directly. The posts don't say whether they accept sponsorships; ask directly.

## Alternatives

- Dwaipayan (Deep) Nath: Choose Nath when clients want to know how AI access and governance affect their own resilience, not just their supply lines. In two posts, Nath reads a government-ordered restriction on a frontier model provider as a warning against basing roadmaps on uninterrupted access to a handful of vendors, then lists possible responses: diversification, open-weight and locally deployable models, and AI sovereignty. A practical leadership programme covers agentic workflows, ERP/CRM integration, and the choice between a US and a Chinese stack. For technology and transformation leaders who already understand supply-chain risk, this is a closer match than Jansen’s macro framing: Nath starts with the enterprise’s own AI estate and works outward to chips, GPU supply and geopolitics. If the invitation is about AI operating-model decisions rather than sovereign infrastructure, Nath addresses the room’s live question more directly.
- Fayadh Alenezi, PhD: Alenezi is the stronger pick when the consultancy wants a capability-building session on how a client’s people should be trained to see risk, rather than a threat picture. One post argues that supply chains are exposed, not fragile; examines maritime chokepoints and dependency patterns across 23 critical raw materials; breaks geopolitical drivers into geography, economics and technology, and military power; and sets out a three-step response: map the chain, analyse exposure across geopolitical, climate and systemic dimensions, and monitor continuously. The other lists situational awareness, critical thinking, risk intelligence, emotional intelligence, communication and a learning mindset as capabilities leaders now need. For an advisory firm selling an engagement that ends in a repeatable risk-intelligence process, that pairing — exposure analysis and the people who run it — is a tighter fit than Jansen’s technology roadmap.
- Steve Evans: Evans is the better choice when the consultancy’s clients are industrial manufacturers and the meeting needs a narrow, quantified operational case rather than macro context. One post explains how to find duplicate and near-duplicate CAD parts by 3D geometry instead of filenames or part numbers, and why that matters after mergers or PLM migrations. It calculates a return from a parts count, duplicate percentage, hours estimate and loaded hourly cost, and names a data-cleansing exercise involving about 40,000 parts, roughly 7,500 exact duplicates and another 4,000 near duplicates. The other post traces aerospace’s shift from 2D drafting to 3D modelling, covering simulation and digital twins, model-based definition, clash detection, generative design, supplier collaboration and certification. For a client deciding whether to invest in engineering data hygiene, that is closer to the decision than anything in Jansen’s posts. Evans also provides a direct enquiry address, a concrete commercial contact route not available in Jansen’s posts.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/