Investment Strategist
For the first time in years, the Ukraine story includes the word “deal” more often than “offensive”. A United States brokered framework discussed in Abu Dhabi has reportedly won Ukraine’s backing “in principle”, with officials speaking of only “minor details” left to settle. Russia has not publicly signed up and missile and drone attacks on Kyiv and Ukraine’s energy grid continue.
Markets do not wait for signatures. European indices and sector baskets already react intraday to every rumour of a ceasefire or setback. Defence stocks wobble when headlines suggest progress. Construction and infrastructure names perk up when investors think about cranes, not tanks.
For long-term investors, the key question is not whether a deal lands on a specific date. It is how a gradual move from hot war to cold peace could reshape cash flows for companies tied to rebuilding, rearming or both over the next decade.
Rebuilding Ukraine is a generational task. International estimates based on a joint World Bank, Government of Ukraine, European Commission and United Nations assessment, put the reconstruction bill at roughly 500 billion USD, with huge needs in housing, roads, bridges, power grids and schools. Cement demand alone could rise by tens of millions of tonnes per year as damaged infrastructure is replaced and upgraded.
That is where the obvious names come in. CRH, Heidelberg Materials and Holcim are large, diversified building materials groups that supply cement, aggregates and concrete across Europe and beyond. CRH already controls a significant share of Ukraine’s cement market, which gives it local know-how as well as physical assets on the ground.
Reconstruction is not a straight line. Money will flow in phases, tied to politics, anti-corruption safeguards and security on the ground. Early waves may focus on critical infrastructure and energy, favouring companies that can deliver low carbon materials and resilient designs that meet European Union standards. Over time, housing, commercial buildings and transport networks could follow, widening the opportunity set to engineering firms, utilities, rail and even insurers and banks that help finance the work.
For investors, the core message is simple. A peace deal would not turn CRH or Holcim into “war winners in reverse”. It would add a long, lumpy but potentially attractive demand tail on top of existing infrastructure and energy transition themes.
If reconstruction is the carrot, defence is the perceived stick. The obvious concern is that peace would kill the European defence story just as many countries finally started spending more. Reality is likely duller and more structural.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies had already agreed to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence and are now debating longer term targets closer to 3.5%, plus extra for infrastructure and cyber security. A ceasefire would not suddenly reverse that. Ammunition stocks need rebuilding, equipment sent to Ukraine needs replacing, and air and missile defences need modernising, with contracts for shells, vehicles and radar often running for years.
The market seems to understand this. On 25 November, the STOXX Europe 600 defence sector rebounded, and key names like Rheinmetall and Saab both gained a bit more than 1% after the earlier “peace optimism” pullback. They already reflect a large part of the post-2022 rearmament story, so a shift from “war risk” trades towards a “peace premium” could cool their valuations over time.
The more likely medium-term outcome is a shift in mix rather than a collapse in budgets. Less emergency spending on immediate conflict, more steady investment in stockpiles, cyber, logistics and infrastructure that helps NATO move forces across Europe. For portfolios, that points to a defence sector that moves from explosive to more boring growth, with volatility around every news headline on the peace process.
There are at least three big risks to keep in mind.
First, the peace process can still fail. Russia has not publicly endorsed the Abu Dhabi framework and continues large scale strikes on Ukraine’s cities and energy grid. Any breakdown in talks, renewed escalation or shift in Western support would quickly reverse a “peace trade” and could send defence names higher again while delaying reconstruction.
Second, reconstruction may disappoint in timing or quality. Governance reforms, anti corruption controls and security conditions will all shape how fast international capital enters Ukraine and which projects get funded. History suggests that post conflict rebuilds are often slower and patchier than early pledges.
Third, political fatigue could cap defence spending. If voters lose patience with higher budgets or economies slow, some European countries may drag their feet on meeting or maintaining the 2% of gross domestic product goal, even if headline targets remain in place. Early warning signs would include delayed procurement decisions, revised multi year defence plans or renewed fights over fiscal rules.
Treat a Ukraine peace as one scenario among several, not a base case. Build portfolios that can live with both a durable ceasefire and a relapse into frozen conflict.
For the rebuild angle, think in tiers. Core building materials, engineering and infrastructure names sit closest to the theme, but broad European industrial and financial exposure can also participate without being a binary bet on Ukraine.
For defence, focus on quality and balance sheets rather than headlines. A measured allocation to diversified defence names can reflect structural spending without relying on constant escalation.
Above all, use diversification, time horizon and position sizing. Scale into themes rather than chasing gap moves on each peace headline and avoid letting any single conflict outcome decide your long-term results.
The idea of a Ukraine peace deal naturally tempts investors to think in binaries. War or peace. Defence boom or bust. Rebuild winners or losers. Markets do not work that neatly. Even if an agreement is signed, it will likely come in stages, with compromises, reversals and long implementation lags. The same is true for budgets and business plans.
The more useful mindset is to see a deal as a pivot, not a finish line. A pivot from emergency spending to longer term rearmament. From destruction to reconstruction. From unpredictable energy shocks to more stable, if still messy, European supply chains. In that world, the winners are not necessarily those who best guess the signing date in Abu Dhabi. They are the investors who anchor on resilient themes, diversify across both rebuild and defence, and build portfolios that can live with uncertainty long after the headlines move on.
This material is marketing content and should not be regarded as investment advice. Trading financial instruments carries risks and historic performance is not a guarantee of future results.
The instrument(s) referenced in this content may be issued by a partner, from whom Saxo receives promotional fees, payment or retrocessions. While Saxo may receive compensation from these partnerships, all content is created with the aim of providing clients with valuable information and options.
Outrageous Predictions
Head of Investment Content Switzerland
Outrageous Predictions
Senior Relationship Manager
Outrageous Predictions
Chief Investment Strategist
Outrageous Predictions
Chief Investment Strategist
Outrageous Predictions
Global Head of Investment Strategy
Outrageous Predictions
Investor Content Strategist
Outrageous Predictions
Global Head of Macro Strategy
Outrageous Predictions
Global Head of Macro Strategy
Outrageous Predictions
Global Head of Macro Strategy
Outrageous Predictions
Global Head of Investment Strategy