Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the War in Ukraine myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
### Key Takeaways
1. **Geopolitical Risk Premium Persists:** The war’s protracted nature and the ambiguity of a “frozen conflict” versus a decisive peace ensure a continued geopolitical risk premium across global markets, particularly impacting commodity prices, energy security, and defense sector investments.
2. **Economic Strain and Shifting Leverage:** Russia’s economy faces sustained haemorrhaging from sanctions and war costs, while Ukraine leverages technological innovation and Western support to bolster its defense industry, creating distinct investment landscapes and sovereign risk profiles for both nations.
3. **Truce as Market Catalyst, Not Resolution:** A potential “meaningful truce” or ceasefire, as suggested by Zelenskyy, could trigger short-term market rallies and reduce acute volatility, yet it would likely leave fundamental geopolitical tensions unresolved, implying sustained caution for long-term capital allocation in the region.
The writer is an FT contributing editor, chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, and fellow at IWM Vienna
The war in Ukraine is now well into its fifth year, outlasting many of the major conflicts of the past century. For global markets, this prolonged geopolitical instability translates directly into an enduring risk premium, shaping everything from commodity prices to sovereign debt ratings and long-term investment strategies. The initial shockwaves of the invasion – which saw energy prices spike, supply chains fray, and inflation surge globally – have given way to a more entrenched market reality where uncertainty is priced in, and geopolitical risk is a permanent fixture on investor dashboards. The fundamental question for financial stakeholders is no longer just “will it end?” but “what kind of end is financially viable, and who holds the economic leverage to achieve it?”
It is possible that it is not only Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ludicrous idea of total victory that keeps the war going. The European and American pursuit of a diplomatically negotiated long-lasting peace may also be a deadly illusion, a perception that itself creates market volatility as investors grapple with the disconnect between aspirational diplomatic outcomes and grim battlefield realities. The reality is that, even if there is minimal chance of an enduring peace, we should not miss the opportunity for a meaningful truce – a “frozen conflict” scenario that, while far from ideal, could at least de-escalate acute market risks and allow for some degree of economic normalisation.
As Nader Mousavizadeh argued in these pages, “we are living through an age of asymmetry, a transitional period in which power flows less from size or wealth than from the ability to convert imbalance into leverage”. In a financial context, this means that traditional metrics of economic might are being challenged by agility, technological superiority, and the strategic application of sanctions. Wars are rebranded as “special operations,” blurring lines and complicating risk assessments for international businesses. No great power is truly great if it cannot achieve its objectives in less than two weeks, a sentiment that fuels swift, impactful, but often unpredictable market reactions to perceived failures or successes. These days, peace is no more than frozen uncertainty, compelling market participants to factor in prolonged geopolitical friction rather than a definitive resolution. We fail to realise that when the nature of the war is changing, the nature of the peace is too – and with it, the nature of economic opportunity and risk.
It is in this context that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s June 4 open letter to Putin deserves special attention. For markets, such an overture for direct negotiations, particularly from a leader previously adamant about isolating Putin, signals a potential shift in strategic calculus. If drones have changed the way Ukraine fights the war, marking a new era for defense technology valuations and military industrial complex investments, Zelenskyy’s letter marks a dramatic change in the way that Kyiv is thinking about its end. In it, he asked for direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, and argued that there is good reason to believe that hostilities could cease in the very near future – a signal that could lead to short-term market rallies, particularly in energy and agricultural commodities, as the “fear premium” potentially diminishes.
We do not know what Putin believes is happening on the battlefield but we do know that Russia is not winning. Its summer offensive has been arrested by Ukraine’s technological advantage, demonstrating the potent impact of innovation on defense sector performance and investor sentiment. While Russia’s losses exceed Moscow’s capacity to mobilise new recruits, intensifying its long-term demographic and labor force challenges, Ukraine’s latest strike on Moscow is a clear sign that we are not witnessing a stalemate. The Russian economy is haemorrhaging under the weight of sanctions, war spending, and the exodus of skilled labor and foreign capital. Public support for the war is visibly eroding, a trend that could eventually translate into domestic political instability and further economic decline, impacting the ruble’s stability and sovereign debt servicing capacity. If Moscow wants to keep pursuing its ambition of taking control over the entire Donbas in the next year or two, Putin would need to resort to mass mobilisation or the use of nuclear weapons. Both options are rife with unpredictable, not to say catastrophic, consequences for global markets, likely triggering a flight to safety, extreme commodity price shocks, and a deep erosion of investor confidence.
If Putin instead opted to stop the fighting, he could not claim total victory — but he could certainly fake success, just as Trump is doing in Iran. From a market perspective, a “faked success” leading to a truce would offer a temporary reprieve. US policies towards Europe guarantee that Ukraine will not join Nato at least in the short term. So, Putin can claim that he has achieved one of his objectives, a perceived de-escalation that could temper defense spending expectations in some NATO countries. Kyiv will also probably not insist on European peacekeepers; Ukraine simply does not need them and, as the latest European Council on Foreign Relations survey reveals, most Europeans are not enthusiastic about sending them either. So Moscow could claim another demand has been met. Moreover, the Kremlin could hope that a ceasefire would trigger tensions within Ukrainian society and become an instrument of political destabilisation, creating a new layer of internal political risk that foreign investors would need to factor into their models for Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction.
Despite their recent military achievements, Ukrainians also have reason to seek an end to the hostilities. Kyiv has won the war in one important sense. The conflict has demonstrated to the world that, contrary to Russian nationalist claims, Ukrainians are not bewitched Russians. Ukraine has lost territory but its sovereignty has been reaffirmed. Its army is one of the strongest in Europe, and its defence sector, fueled by Western aid and domestic innovation, is the envy of the world, presenting potential long-term investment opportunities in a rebuilt, secure nation. And while the Russian language is still spoken in Ukraine, very few would identify themselves as Russians outside the occupied territories if a referendum were held today. So, after four years of war, there is no one in Ukraine that Moscow can plausibly claim to be defending.
The painful question now facing Zelenskyy is not how to withstand Russia’s aggression but how many more people Ukraine can lose before it loses its future? This is a stark economic calculation: a long war means not only more citizens killed and wounded but also fewer babies born and fewer Ukrainians returning home from abroad. The erosion of human capital represents a profound long-term drag on Ukraine’s economic potential, impacting future productivity, consumption, and the tax base required for reconstruction. So, prolongation of the conflict — even if it means liberating some additional territories — is not the optimal long-term strategy, especially with another cruel winter ahead and future vulnerability to unfavourable shifts in European politics, which could impact the continuity of vital financial and military aid.
Right now, there is a real opportunity to freeze the war. The risk is that the window will pass due to Putin’s delusion that he can achieve total victory and because Ukraine’s European allies have failed to grasp that the nature of making peace has changed, along with the nature of waging war. In this dangerous new world, the former is simply the absence of the latter. Direct talks between Russians and Ukrainians may yet be the most realistic way to achieve what passes today for peace, offering a potential, albeit fragile, pathway for markets to recalibrate and perhaps temper the sustained geopolitical risk premium that has defined the global economic landscape for the past four years.
### Market Impact
A shift towards a “meaningful truce” or a frozen conflict, as outlined, would have immediate and profound market implications. Commodity markets, particularly energy and agricultural products, would likely see an immediate de-escalation of prices as supply chain risks diminish and the geopolitical risk premium wanes. Defense sector valuations might stabilise or even see a slight downturn if the immediate threat perception is reduced, though long-term rearmament trends driven by renewed European security concerns would likely persist. Russian assets, already deeply discounted and subject to extensive sanctions, might see marginal relief but no significant re-rating without a comprehensive peace deal and sanctions removal. Conversely, a potential ceasefire would significantly improve the long-term outlook for Ukrainian reconstruction bonds and attract foreign direct investment, albeit with careful risk assessment due to the inherent instability of a frozen conflict. Investors would re-evaluate regional supply chains for resilience, looking for opportunities in reconstruction and critical infrastructure development, while global equities would likely experience a broad-based, albeit cautious, risk-on rally, reflecting a reduced tail risk from an escalating conflict. The focus for investors will pivot from managing immediate crisis to navigating the complex, long-term implications of sustained geopolitical rivalry in a “no-peace, no-war” environment.