According to Zhitong Finance APP, Trump's announcement of a Russia-Ukraine "energy ceasefire" has crystallized the latest disagreement among Wall Street analysts into one key question: can a diplomatic statement led by the U.S. president translate into real improvements in energy supply, thereby loosening the inflation and surging Treasury yield pressures weighing on global tech asset valuations? Former JPMorgan strategist Marko Kolanovic questioned the credibility of the ceasefire, while Tom Lee, a Wall Street strategist who has made several precise market calls since 2025, emphasized that if the energy ceasefire is honored, it would help ease the ongoing impact of high oil prices on consumers, the economy, and the stock market.
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that Russia and Ukraine have reached an energy ceasefire triggered sharply divergent reactions from Wall Street strategists on Sunday: former JPMorgan strategist Marko Kolanovic questioned the credibility of the news, while Fundstrat's Tom Lee pointed to the potential benefits of lower oil prices.
"This weekend, everyone saw burning tankers, oil fields, and airports. This energy ceasefire looks like another hoax," Kolanovic wrote on X, expressing skepticism about Trump's claim that the two countries have agreed to stop attacking energy infrastructure.
Fundstrat Global Advisors co-founder and head of research Lee offered a more optimistic assessment, though he attached a caveat to his judgment. "If true, this would be a positive," Lee wrote on X. "Rising oil prices have been a source of global inflation pressure and consumer hardship."
The two men's differing reactions came after Trump claimed that an agreement had taken effect immediately. "Effective immediately, the Energy Ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine War is in effect. Both sides have agreed. Do not violate the ceasefire!" Trump wrote on social media, without providing details on the ceasefire's duration or enforcement mechanism.
Kolanovic holds a Ph.D. in theoretical high-energy physics from New York University. He previously conducted derivatives and quantitative research at Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, and later served as JPMorgan's chief market strategist and co-head of global research, leaving the firm in July 2024. He is known for his research on capital flows, derivatives, and cross-asset market structure, and his methodology has been adopted by large hedge funds, giving him high visibility among institutional investors.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subsequently questioned Trump's claim. He told Axios reporter Barak Ravid that the announcement caught him by surprise. "The news of the ceasefire is something I just heard about as well," Zelensky said, adding that Ukraine is willing to accept an energy ceasefire if Russia agrees. He asked Trump to clarify when the agreement would begin implementation.
Russia has repeatedly attacked Ukraine's power grid, power plants, and gas infrastructure, while Ukrainian drone strikes have damaged Russian refineries and export facilities. These attacks have disrupted energy supplies and pushed fuel prices higher, especially diesel prices. Diesel is critical for trucking, agriculture, and industrial production. Trump criticized Ukraine's strikes on refineries, saying they contributed to higher U.S. diesel prices. His administration recently eased sanctions on Russian diesel exports following talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelensky criticized this move, arguing it could provide Moscow with more revenue to fund the war. Axios reported that Trump made this decision because Ukrainian officials rejected multiple U.S. requests to stop attacking Russian refineries.
For investors, a credible ceasefire agreement could help ease global energy price pressures, thereby reducing inflation and transportation costs and improving the outlook for fuel-intensive businesses. However, the arrangement announced by Trump has not yet been confirmed by Russia, and Zelensky's response indicates that Ukraine has not formally agreed to it. This uncertainty forces energy markets to weigh the possibility of lower prices against the risk of continued attacks on critical infrastructure.
"Energy Ceasefire" Collides with the Reality of War? Markets Still Await Peace Dividends That Can Deliver Stable Energy Supply
The disagreement between Kolanovic and Tom Lee first hinges on the likelihood of the ceasefire being honored. What Kolanovic sees is the gap between attacks on tankers, oil fields, and airports and the ceasefire statement; what Tom Lee discusses are the economic benefits after the agreement is implemented, with "if true" being an indispensable precondition for his judgment.
The latest news has further exposed implementation obstacles: Zelensky said that after Trump announced the ceasefire, Kyiv's power plant and energy facilities in the Kharkiv region were still attacked by Russia, and Ukraine is waiting for specific arrangements. Axios cited a White House official as saying that the initial plan may only involve refineries, and Russia has not yet accepted it. Stopping attacks on refineries and stopping attacks on all energy facilities clearly correspond to different security guarantees and supply recovery prospects.
The Middle East has also yet to see a breakthrough sufficient to support a "comprehensive de-escalation." Iran said on October 11 that the U.S. response to conditions related to reopening the Strait of Hormuz was "insufficient"; meanwhile, Saudi airports have been repeatedly attacked, and Gulf tanker shipping continues to face security threats. Diplomatic contacts are still ongoing, but transportation risks and infrastructure risks have not substantially receded.
During Asian trading hours on the morning of October 12 Beijing time, Brent crude was at $105.48 per barrel, up 0.73%; WTI was at $92.44 per barrel, up 0.64%. Based on the pre-war levels of $72.48 and $67.02 on February 27, the two benchmark oil prices have cumulatively risen about 45.5% and 37.9%, respectively. The price reaction at Monday's open shows that some ceasefire news over the weekend has not yet offset market concerns about supply disruptions.
From the perspective of energy supply mechanisms, what truly affects inflation is how much crude refineries can process, how much refined product can be exported, and whether transportation can be completed safely. If the Russia-Ukraine energy facility ceasefire can be sustained, it may reduce the risk of refineries being damaged again and create conditions for maintenance and export recovery; improved diesel supply would also transmit through road transportation, agricultural machinery, and industrial logistics, easing corporate cost pressures. However, diesel prices are also affected by crude costs, refining capacity, and transportation costs, and a decline in crude does not guarantee a simultaneous and equal decline in diesel. What investors need to see is sustained cost improvement brought about by the restoration of energy supply chain operations.
The Long-Bond Selloff Storm Is Still Sweeping Global Financial Markets
The energy shock is overlapping with long-term supply-demand pressures in funds, pushing up the anchor of global asset pricing. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield briefly rose to 5.364% on October 7, an intraday high in 24 years; the 30-year yield briefly touched about 5.732% on October 8. Buying subsequently pushed yields lower, but the daily closing curve released by the U.S. Treasury on October 9 still showed the 10-year and 30-year at 5.24% and 5.60%, respectively. This means that although long-term financing costs have moved away from recent peaks, they remain at significantly elevated levels.
The reason long-term yields are difficult to bring down quickly with a single ceasefire statement is that their pricing simultaneously includes the future path of short-term rates and the term premium required for holding long-term bonds. Rising energy prices increase the risk of persistently high inflation, limiting room for central bank easing; fiscal financing needs and policy uncertainty raise the compensation investors demand for bearing long-term risk. The New York Fed's model estimate of the 10-year term premium recently rose to about 96 basis points, a 12-year high; on October 9, the real yields on 10-year and 30-year inflation-protected Treasuries were 2.91% and 3.32%, respectively, indicating that financing pressure is also reflected in higher real funding costs.
The AI investment boom is further reinforcing this pressure through financing markets: after some institutions buy long-term bonds of tech giants, they sell Treasury futures to hedge duration, or sell Treasuries to free up investment capacity; rising rates extend the expected duration of mortgage-backed securities, triggering additional rate-hedging sales. The combined effect of corporate financing and hedging trades may make the bond selloff self-reinforcing. Therefore, even if near-term rate hike expectations have cooled somewhat, long-term bonds may still face supply and risk-compensation pressure.
This pressure is also transmitting overseas. The U.K. 30-year gilt yield touched 6.05% on October 8, the highest since early 1998; France, in addition to the global rise in rates, is also bearing the impact of deficit reduction falling short of expectations, debt burden, and political uncertainty, with the yield premium of French 10-year government bonds over Italian bonds rising to 30 basis points, a record since the euro's creation. This also reveals an important change: a common energy shock and rising funding costs are amplifying the different fiscal vulnerabilities of individual countries.
Undoubtedly, a credible and sustained energy ceasefire between the warring parties could simultaneously improve the cost and demand environment for aviation, transportation, and some consumer companies, and ease the heavy U.S. inflation pressure as well as the persistent discount-rate pressure on the denominator side of growth stocks; but falling oil prices can only remove part of the constraint, and fiscal risks and long-term financing needs will not disappear with them. For the AI computing infrastructure investment theme, the real "kill line" that must be crossed is whether project cash returns can cover funding costs and equipment renewal investment. Only if energy costs decline, long-term yields stabilize, and AI companies continue to deliver revenue and cash flow can tech stocks hope to receive support from both earnings and valuation.