Abishur Prakash is the founder of The Geopolitical Business, a Toronto-based strategy advisory, and produces the Mr. Geopolitics insights for global leaders. He is the author of six books, including his latest, "The Great Fracturing: How Geopolitics Is Breaking the World."

In 1925, Benito Mussolini launched the infamous Battle for Grain, calling for domestic wheat production to replace imports. Mussolini's goal was autarky: economic independence and sovereignty for Italy. By the 1930s, Mussolini's wheat campaign backfired as Italians were prodded to abandon pasta -- a no-go in the world's capital of the food.

Since the end of World War II, globalization cast autarky out, prioritizing integration and interdependency over national self-interest. But today, as a new geopolitical jungle forms, governments are again treating foreign reliance as a threat. Their new objective: becoming fortresses that can absorb the next geopolitical shocks by producing the most critical goods within. At the center of the new fortress thinking is Asia.

In February 2027, Japan will conduct an experiment to extract rare earth minerals, like yttrium, from the Pacific Ocean to ensure that Japanese supply chains remain online even if Beijing weaponizes exports. Taiwan, meanwhile, will build 160 microgrids that can power the nation even if the main grid fails, for example, over an invasion. Whether production or energy, the new goal is to keep the economic gears turning no matter what geopolitics strike. Japan and Taiwan are not alone.

Laos wants to become a hub for clean energy and logistics that Southeast Asia can rely on when crisis erupts; Singapore wants 30% of its protein needs and 20% of its fiber needs supplied domestically by 2035; India is allowing ADNOC (UAE) to store 30 million barrels of oil in strategic reserves, a 500% increase from current levels; and South Korea is accelerating its "K-Cloud" project, seeking to build a sovereign AI stack, from chips to LLMs, or large language models.

For decades, nations eyed integration to secure their economies. Nobody would collide, or go to war), if it risked derailing trade or investments. The war in Ukraine shattered this logic. Now, the growing belief is that securing the economy is the outcome of isolation, not integration. The fear is that critical goods and services could be held hostage by geopolitics. The only solution is to procure from within the borders of the fortress.

Even geopolitical alignment does not guarantee supplies, signaled by the U.S. saying its most advanced chips are only for America, not anywhere else. The race is now on to build new industrial lines, infrastructure and stockpiles to remain stable in an unstable world.

A view shows Samsung Electronics' chip production plant at Pyeongtaek, South Korea, on Sept. 7, 2022. The rise of fortress economies is turning the post-1945 global architecture on its head.

To start with, capital could soon be trapped as governments demand that foreign investors support the fortress. Those that get cold feet may have few options, as governments block exits or withdrawals, driving new capital Iron Curtains that fracture the global economy.

Then there is the rise of "geopolitical economics," where governments approach trade, production, technology and connectivity through the lens of what is geopolitically safe, not economically sound. The bigger the fortress, the more the economics will revolve around geopolitics.

Fortress economies also spell disaster for the export model of many nations. Manufacturers from China to Canada will be in an uncomfortable position as they come under pressure to build in other nations the capacity to produce what they once exported.

Lastly, in the rush to become fortresses, the world faces an unexpected risk: mass hoarding and stockpiling. This could transform why production occurs, as a growing percentage of goods are manufactured to supply the geopolitical needs of nations. In fact, Japan is already moving in this direction, as the government explores subsidies to create "spare capacity" for drones and ammunition.

Of course, not every nation is convinced that becoming a fortress is the best bet. With the Strait of Hormuz remaining paralyzed, and Indonesia floating a toll in the Strait of Malacca, Thailand has restarted work on the Kra Canal, seeking to build a new Panama Canal-like trade artery that can replace Malacca. Put simply, Bangkok wants to keep goods and services circulating, not walled off.

For decades, fortress thinking was the refuge of sanctioned or isolated nations. Today, it is the solution of uncertain and insecure nations, the bulk of the world.

Beneath the veil of economic policy lies a dangerous geopolitical truth: nations do not build fortresses in peacetime.

Asia's re-engineering reveals a shared conviction that a sustained period of global conflict has already begun -- with no end date. Countries are betting that without an economic shield, collision or captivity is inevitable. But in the rush to secure their markets, governments risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The very fortresses built to survive an unstable world could guarantee that a fractured, zero-sum global economy becomes the only reality. And in such a reality, few, if any, may dismantle the fortress.