Vision or excuse?

There is an interesting pattern we can observe almost everywhere – in companies, institutions, countries, and ultimately in individuals – namely that people without a vision very rarely make mistakes, but at the same time even more rarely do anything worth mentioning, because they stand still, observe, analyze, and wait for the “right moment,” which of course never comes, because in reality it is not created by those who wait, but by those who step in while others are still weighing whether it is safe.

Progress without consensus

If we look at the example of Slovenia's Planica, which is globally recognized. It is no longer a secret but almost an announcement that the ski flying hill could be extended to a point where flights would reach 270 meters. We quickly encounter critics, skeptics, and concerns about safety, purpose, and feasibility of such a project, which is actually completely expected. Every idea that goes beyond existing frameworks first meets resistance, but the difference between those who remain in doubt and those who take a step forward is not that the former do not understand the risk, but that the latter still believe progress is possible and worth pursuing. No first step or change is ever easy.

Fear as a flawed compass

A similar dynamic can be observed in markets often labeled as “risky,” “unstable,” or “too complex,” whether due to geopolitics, history, or general perception. We are witnessing increasing global egoism among world leaders, which has also led certain markets to turn inward. This is the case with the UAE and especially the well-known Dubai. Demand and market dynamics there are slowing down. Yet this very “silence,” which many interpret as a warning and fear, is for others a signal that space is being created—where competition is decreasing or has not yet occupied all positions, and where those with sufficient courage, vision, and above all a concrete solution can actually enter.

Connections that open doors – but solve nothing

Of course, it would be naive to claim that entering such markets depends solely on courage and the quality of the solution. Very quickly, we encounter the reality of relationships, connections, and the notion of “being one of us.” This is where the difference emerges. Connections, relationships, and especially “being one of us,” as well as how thick the envelope is that goes into someone's pocket. And this is increasingly present everywhere—in Europe, the USA, and the Middle East. Of course, I am referring to the public sector, as in the private sector, any company that has worked hard to enter the market and achieve some level of success knows very well that what truly matters is quality, consistency, courage, and accountability.

This does not mean that every deal is the result of corruption—far from it—but it does mean that trust is the currency that opens doors, and without it, we often cannot even reach the point where we could present a solution. This is where differences between countries emerge. In the UAE, public trust in institutions is high, even though these are absolute monarchies, where “public” institutions are effectively an extension of royal authority. Data shows that the population perceives this structure as stable and effective. There, of course, it matters who you speak with, but it is equally important to take time to build relationships, spend time with them, and visit them in person. Online meetings are not enough. Above all, you must demonstrate the value and practical usefulness of your solution/product.

Connections alone are never sufficient if they are not backed by something that truly works, because any system—regardless of how closed or open it is—cannot sustain poor solutions in the long run, especially in an era where digitalization increasingly reveals what works and what does not.

Digitalization as a reality test

This brings us to digitalization, which today everyone likes to mention—often as a buzzword, and even more often as an excuse for why something is not yet possible or why “the system is not ready.” In reality, however, digitalization does not differentiate between regions, cultures, or political systems. It simply holds up a mirror—does a solution create value or not? Does it enable better understanding of the user, personalization, process optimization, and greater efficiency, or does it remain at the level of presentations and nice promises?

From my own experience, I can say that even in countries considered more closed or even corrupt, where without personal contact, repeated visits, and relationship-building over tea or dinner you can hardly start a serious conversation, there is still a very clear distinction between those who come just for business and those who bring a solution. The latter do not look for shortcuts but understand that trust is not something that can be bought—it is something that must be built—and that a good solution often becomes an argument for those on the other side to support it, because it enables them to achieve results as well, thereby building their own credibility.

The combination that separates an idea from realization

Therefore, the discussion about whether a market is “right” or “wrong” is often incorrectly framed. The real question is not what the market is like, but who we are when we decide whether to enter or not. Are we looking for reasons why something will not work, or ways in which it could? Are we waiting for things to stabilize, or do we understand that opportunities rarely appear when everything is stable and predictable?

In the end, things always come down to a relatively simple, though not necessarily easy, combination:

• Vision without courage remains an idea,
• Courage without a solution quickly becomes risk,
• A solution without trust often goes unnoticed,

but when these elements come together—when someone sees further, dares to step forward, brings something that truly works, and at the same time builds relationships that enable implementation—then we are talking about realization.

And it is precisely these people, who do not wait for perfect conditions but understand that they never truly exist, who ultimately define the markets that others later describe as having “always been promising.”