The Political and Financial Implications of Achieving Peace with Russia

This Christmas I am going to try to keep to my own investment advice and not let my fears or desire get the better of me. Here is a rundown of how I see the current Irish and global political situation leading into Christmas. I have been told to avoid writing in a stream of consciousness, so I will try to keep my thoughts on track, to the point, and punchy.

I haven’t watched the news or read anything to do with the news or war in three to six months. This has greatly enhanced my day‑to‑day well‑being. However, it has also meant denying the reality of the world we live in to some extent. Recently, the echo of war has been growing louder in the background, appearing in passing news in the background, to the point where I believed encouraging people to soften their stances and avoid digging in their heels around here might help.

To give a full breakdown of my thoughts on the Ukraine war: my calculations six months to a year ago were that Ukraine might have to give up the land Russia currently holds, while gaining security guarantees in the form of joining NATO and the EU. At the same time, NATO could reduce bases and launch facilities in Eastern Europe. In other words, reverse some of its post‑Cold War expansion, maintain the NATO members added under Clinton and Bush, but reverse the expansion of U.S. bases and launch facilities added during that period and since.

The challenge is that any settlement will involve concessions. People may fear losing pensions, savings, or freedoms in the form of a far left government. I am not willing to give those things up, but some form of compromise may have to be agreed to bring about an end to the war.

The problem is that if far‑left parties gain power in Ireland after a post-war new global alignment between America and the BRICs, some households with delicate financial arrangements could face higher taxes, debt, foreclosure, homelessness. It is not simply a matter of education or effort. What we risk sacrificing by allowing the far left to get into power, or by allowing far-left drastically restructuring the economy, are life savings, pensions, freedom.

But what do we mean by freedom? Is it buying a better type of spinach in the grocery market, affording heating and internet in retirement, choosing which college your children attend, or defending against foreign invaders and winning wars? It is all of those things. The challenge is ensuring that concessions do not bankrupt households or undermine pensions by destabilizing the wider system.

To prevent that, we need strong economic safeguards at home and institutional commitments from the EU abroad. At home, pensions and savings can be protected by legally protecting pension funds. Government borrowing must be kept down, the housing market must be kept stable, and interest rates should be kept low. At the same time, households can be shielded from foreclosure through stronger mortgage relief mechanisms and debt restructuring programs that activate in times of economic shock.

Some will criticize my determination of the situation as a choice between bankruptcy versus capitulation to Russia and say it is not that simple — that we can maintain pensions, preserve stability, and still resist wars. But I am not so sure. Without compromise, we risk a wider conflict with the BRICs, which the West will likely lose. The best positioned people to manage this are those in America who were behind negotiations with the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

It is not simply a case of holding our nerve and maneuvering our way out. Putin and his allies are calling bluffs. France does not have the appetite to defend the former Soviet republics in Europe it will do so if necessary, but it doesn't want to. So compromise may be the only way forward. It is a dangerous game to play, and I want to remind you that this could mean bankruptcy for some households. My family and others I know have lived close to such scenarios for forty years.