By Michael Every of Rabobank
There are days and weeks where it’s all about the data. Not this week.
Reuters reports the US has sent the following questions for Europe to answer:
What do you view as a Europe-backed security guarantee or assurance that would serve as a sufficient deterrent to Russia while also ensuring this conflict ends with an enduring peace settlement?
Which European and/or third countries do you believe could or would participate in such an arrangement? Are there any countries you believe would be indispensable? Would your country be willing to deploy its troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement?
If third country military forces were to be deployed to Ukraine as part of a peace arrangement, what would you consider to be the necessary size of such a European-led force? How and where would these forces be deployed and for how long?
What actions do US allies and partners need to be prepared to take if Russia attacks these forces?
What, if any, US support requirements would your government consider necessary for its participation in these security arrangements Specifically, which short-term and long-term resources do you think will be required from the US?
What additional capabilities, equipment and maintenance sustainment options is your government prepared to provide to Ukraine to improve its negotiating hand and increase pressure on Russia? What more is your government prepared to do to increase its sanctions on Russia, including more strictly enforcing sanctions and better targeting third countries enabling Russia globally?
Whatever market you cover, take a moment to consider the fiscal, financial, and real economy impact involved from the above, especially point 6 given Europe still transships its goods to Russia via central Asia and refuses to use secondary sanctions against third parties “enabling Russia globally”. Then consider the additional costs of Europe and the UK backing Ukraine retaking its pre-war territory, which means hot war with Russia without the US.
To say this would be a structural break for Europe is an understatement. How might this be done, physically, politically, and financially? As throughout history, national security may drive rapid, dramatic changes in political economy and market structures.
If not, urgent, permanent, expensive change will be imposed on Europe anyway: as President Zelenskyy just put it, "If not Brussels, then Moscow. It’s your decision. That’s geopolitics. That’s history. Moscow will pull Europe apart if we, as Europeans, don’t trust each other."
The UK now says it will send troops to Ukraine. That’s a political Rubicon crossed. Next is a vast increase in defence spending, if that is what its GDP is now for: a promised 2.5% of GDP spend years from now was already decried as “not touching the sides” even before this news.
To put this in context, the Financial Times’s Gillian Tett argues smaller economies must “become a vassal of America’s imperial power”, oppose it by siding with Russia and China - with no imperial pretensions, honest, or hedge their bets – and good luck to them. Relatedly, she predicts the BOJ to eventually allow JPY to appreciate vs. USD and, running the other way, Japan to buy long-term zero-coupon US debt, or perpetuals, to pay for its US military protection --NB ideas already floated by the Chair of the US Council of Economic Advisors-- but is that offer even on the table for Europe at this stage, or is it only for Asia?
President Trump controversially just tweeted, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” quoting Napoleon, despite US intellectual Bill Kristol retorting, “This reads better in the original German,” saying a lot about US intellectuals to Europeans lacking Bonaparte’s power. Perhaps we will soon hear, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Fiscal Law.”
So, yes, expect a busy, and expensive, week in related geopolitics.
Tuesday, Saudi Arabia hosts US-Russia talks over Ukraine, with Europe and Ukraine maybe getting a look-in later, underlining why Europe needs hard power. As @BrankoMilan notes, neither Vienna 1815, Berlin 1875, Versailles 1919, Tehran 1943, Yalta 1945, Potsdam 1945, Washington 1962, Reykjavik 1986, nor Malta 1989 included the countries discussed there. Regular readers will also know I have been flagging potential Tehran/Yalta/Potsdam repeats for years.
The Saudis are also proposing to mediate between Trump and Iran, which some see as a diplomatic way of pretending they wouldn’t be as happy about an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites as any deal That’s as Israel and the US agree Tehran must never have a nuke, and the Israeli defence minister underlines it remains their #1 strategic priority, whatever the economic cost.
US envoy Russia and Ukraine Kellogg ‘revealed’ the States will attempt to pressure Putin into breaking alliances with North Korea, China, and Iran as part of a Ukraine deal. That would also reshape the world economy. However, an inverse-Nixon strategy is very unlikely to succeed. The Russia-China compact is not for moving, even if some in Europe think the riposte to the US telling it to pay its own defence bill is to move closer to Beijing – risking further US action.
As it’s reported that Beijing isn’t just limiting goods and technology exports, but key firms’ foreign investments and travel of highly skilled individuals, Xi Jinping will hold a public meeting with top tech firms to show support for the recent successes of DeepSeek and Apple’s collaboration with Alibaba. And the West will likely continue to mirror those actions.
That’s as the US removed opposition to Taiwanese independence from its official website in tweaked language, as it pivots to Asia and Taiwan to raising its defence budget to 3% of GDP.
Meanwhile, more directly in markets:
President Trump's top economic adviser Kevin Hassett will now meet regularly with the Fed’s Powell to ‘exchange views on the economy’. Although this also happened in the first Trump term, this is a different world, and the Fed and Trump have different views on the economy and rates.
The Financial Times says gold is the top ‘Trump Trade’, as the next DOGE trial-by-X target is floated as Fort Knox, the Bank of England flaps, and bullion continues to flow into the US.
And Bloomberg says, “Trump’s Tariffs Are a Mystery, So Investors Keep Buying Stocks.” Which sums up that market’s ‘thinking’ about geopolitics well. As one experienced hand told me, people are already too tired to keep chasing headlines, so are just waiting to see. As another trader put it, a generation of market people who ‘don’t do geopolitics’ was always going to react like that rather than seeing the worrying bigger picture – but that just means that the reaction will be even larger when the penny finally drops for them.
