NextFin News - Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine could begin next year, according to Sir Richard Moore, the former head of Britain's MI6, a judgment that puts Europe's defense-stock rally to its first real test. The assessment arrives as Russian forces absorb more than 40,000 casualties a month for battlefield gains measured in meters, and as defense equities trade at multiples that assume years of rearmament demand. The question for investors is whether the market has priced a war that may be closer to an ending than a beginning.
The Signal and the Stakes
Sir Richard Moore, who led the Secret Intelligence Service from 2020 until his departure in September 2025, said negotiations could open as soon as next year. The remark matters because it comes from the same official who, less than a year earlier, told Western governments they had no evidence that Vladimir Putin was interested in any negotiated peace short of Ukrainian capitulation. Moving from "no evidence of interest" to "talks could begin next year" is not a minor shift in tone; it is a change in the expected trajectory of a four-year war.
The market implication is direct. European defense shares have been among the clearest beneficiaries of the conflict. Rheinmetall, the German ammunition and armored-vehicle maker, gained 152% in 2025 and is up about 33% year to date as of early September 2026, compared with roughly 6% for the DAX. Thales rose 69% in 2025 and Leonardo added 93%. The trade has been built on a simple premise: the war will not end soon, and European governments will keep spending regardless.
Peace-talk headlines are exactly the shock that trade is most exposed to. In December 2025, European defense stocks fell 4% to 6% in a single session after U.S. officials floated NATO-style security guarantees for Kyiv under a proposed settlement. Construction and materials shares — Buzzi, Holcim, Heidelberg Materials — rallied 4.3% to 4.8% on the same news. The rotation was the market's first honest answer to the question of what happens to the rearmament trade when the war ends: the builders go up, and the armorers come down.
Why the Battlefield Math Points Toward a Negotiation Window
The case for talks opening next year rests less on diplomacy than on arithmetic. Russian forces suffered 42,020 casualties in August 2026 alone, the second consecutive month above 40,000, according to the Ukrainian General Staff's daily assessments compiled by the Institute for the Study of War. That works out to roughly 340 casualties for every square kilometer of territory seized or infiltrated — a price that even a much larger army cannot sustain indefinitely without political consequence.
The recruitment balance has also turned against Moscow. In December 2025, Russian losses of 33,200 killed and wounded exceeded the 27,400 new contract soldiers signed that month, the first time the gap flipped against the Kremlin. The two preceding months had still been favorable: 31,500 losses against 35,600 recruits in October, then about 31,000 against more than 33,300 in November. A war machine that has run on volunteers and cash incentives is now consuming men faster than it can replace them.
The cumulative toll is harder to pin down, but the range is wide enough to matter. A February 2026 estimate put total Russian casualties at 1.2 million, including 325,000 killed. Dutch military intelligence, in an April 2026 assessment, estimated roughly 1.2 million permanent losses with more than 500,000 dead. Independent counts by Meduza and Mediazona identified 352,000 killed by May 2026, while the Economist estimated 1.1 million to 1.5 million killed and wounded. By contrast, the Soviet Union lost approximately 15,000 soldiers over the entire ten-year Afghanistan war — meaning Russia may have lost twice that number in a single month at the end of 2025.
"The losses are terrible, and even the Russians will struggle to replace that level of losses. So, they continue to do appallingly badly on the battlefield. We should be adding more pressure. We should be helping the Ukrainians more extensively than we are," Moore said in a February 2026 interview.
Moore's prescription reveals the mechanism behind any negotiation: talks do not begin because both sides want them; they begin when one side's cost of continuing exceeds its expected value of fighting. Russia has not reached that point. Moore himself said in September 2025 that he saw no evidence of Russian interest in negotiated peace, and repeated in November 2025 that intelligence assessments showed Putin had no intention of reaching a deal. But a leadership absorbing 40,000 casualties a month for meters of rubble is being pushed toward that point by attrition, not by persuasion.
The Cyclical Call: A War-Termination Shock, Not a Structural Peace
Here is the judgment investors should make clearly: any peace process that emerges from the Ukraine war is a cyclical event, not a structural regime change in European defense spending. The distinction determines whether the defense rally is over or merely paused.
A cyclical shock is mean-reverting by nature. The war accelerated defense budgets that were already rising before 2022; NATO's 2% of GDP target dates to 2014, and European rearmament was underway before the first tank crossed the border. The conflict compressed a decade of planned spending into three years, pulling orders forward. When the shooting stops, some orders will be deferred, some programs reviewed, and the stocks that rose on war urgency will give back a portion of their gains. That is the cyclical leg, and it is real.
But the structural leg runs underneath it. Europe's security environment has changed permanently. Russia has demonstrated a willingness to wage a conventional war of conquest on the continent; Finland and Sweden have joined NATO; Germany created a €100 billion special defense fund; and the political consensus that defense spending is a burden rather than an insurance premium has collapsed across the continent. Those changes do not reverse when a ceasefire is signed. The order backlogs confirm it: Rheinmetall held €64 billion in backlog at the end of 2025, Thales reported €55.3 billion, and Saab's backlog reached SEK 274.5 billion, up 47% in a year. These are not spot orders; they are multi-year commitments that survive a change in the daily headlines.
The correct read is that a peace process produces a cyclical de-rating of war-urgent names — ammunition, artillery shells, the stocks that priced in endless consumption — while leaving the structural rearmament thesis intact for platforms, air defense, and dual-use technologies with export pipelines that extend beyond Ukraine. The market's December 2025 reaction, a 4% to 6% drop on peace-talk headlines followed by dip-buying, is consistent with exactly this: traders treated the news as a cyclical scare within a structural uptrend.
The Second-Order Trade: Who Loses First, Who Wins Later
The first-order effect of peace-talk news is mechanical and already visible: defense stocks fall, reconstruction stocks rise. The second-order effect is what the market has not fully priced. A settlement that ends active combat in Ukraine does not end the demand for defense goods; it redirects it. Ammunition fired in Ukraine today is ammunition that must be replaced in national stockpiles tomorrow. The war emptied Western arsenals; peace creates the budgetary and political space to refill them on a planned, multi-year basis rather than an emergency one.
The more consequential second-order channel runs through reconstruction. European construction and materials companies rallied on peace-talk headlines because a post-war Ukraine would require one of the largest rebuilding efforts in modern history. But the same channel cuts the other way for defense: governments that commit hundreds of billions to reconstruction may face a fiscal trade-off with defense budgets. The rearmament rally assumed that Europe could spend more on guns and butter simultaneously. A peace settlement forces that trade-off into the open.
There is also a valuation channel. Rheinmetall trades at a trailing P/E of roughly 39, with a 52-week range stretching from about 929 to 2,008 — a stock that has already priced in a great deal of good news. At those multiples, the asymmetry is unfavorable: any disappointment on order flow, any delay in government contracts, any credible step toward negotiations can produce a disproportionate move to the downside. The December 2025 session, in which defense shares fell 4% to 6% on a single round of peace-talk speculation, is the template. The market does not need the war to end to punish the stocks; it only needs the probability of an ending to rise.
The Counter-Thesis: Putin Has Not Conceded, and the Market Knows It
The strongest argument against reading Moore's remark as a near-term bearish signal for defense is the simplest: nothing in Putin's behavior suggests he is ready to deal. Moore himself said in September 2025 that he saw no evidence of Russian interest in negotiated peace, and in November 2025 he repeated that intelligence assessments showed Putin had no intention of reaching a deal. A former intelligence chief speculating that talks "could" begin next year is not the same as an assessment that they will. The gap between possibility and probability is where the defense trade still lives.
Nor has the battlefield produced a decisive shift. Russian forces continue to advance, slowly and expensively, in the east. Moscow controls all of Luhansk and Ukraine holds only about 19% of Donetsk, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. A leader willing to absorb 40,000 casualties a month for incremental gains has not signaled capitulation; he has signaled a willingness to outlast the West. If Putin's calculus is that Western attention and ammunition stocks will fatigue before his manpower does, then peace talks remain a distant prospect, and the rearmament trade retains its fundamental support.
The falsifying signal for the view that defense stocks face a cyclical de-rating is concrete. If Russian casualties fall materially — below 25,000 per month for two consecutive months — while Russia continues to hold or expand its territorial positions, the attrition-pressure thesis is wrong. Under that scenario, Moscow can sustain the war indefinitely, negotiations remain a mirage, and the rearmament trade keeps its fundamental floor. Conversely, if monthly casualties stay above 40,000 while recruitment continues to lag losses, the pressure for a negotiated exit builds, and the defense complex faces its first genuine demand shock since the invasion began.
What to Watch: The Roadmap for Investors
In the short term, defense stocks will remain headline-sensitive. Every statement from Kyiv, Washington, or Moscow about the shape of a settlement will produce volatility, and the December 2025 pattern — 4% to 6% drops on peace-talk news, followed by dip-buying — is likely to repeat. The traders who bought that dip were betting on the structural leg of the thesis; the question for the next cycle is whether that reflex survives a genuine negotiation process rather than mere speculation.
Over the medium term, the key data points are order backlogs and government budget announcements. Rheinmetall's €64 billion backlog, Thales' €55.3 billion, and Saab's SEK 274.5 billion are the numbers that matter. If those backlogs hold or grow after a ceasefire, the structural thesis survives intact. If governments begin canceling or deferring contracts, the cyclical de-rating becomes a fundamental earnings story rather than a multiple-compression story.
In the long term, the question is whether Europe's rearmament becomes a permanent feature of its fiscal architecture or a war-driven spike that mean-reverts. The evidence — NATO expansion, Germany's special fund, the political collapse of the peace-dividend consensus — points to structural. But structures can coexist with severe cyclical drawdowns along the way. The defense stocks that survive will be those with order books that extend beyond Ukraine; the ones that do not will discover that a peace dividend is a real thing, and that it has beneficiaries other than the armorers.
The central judgment: Moore's remark is a warning that the war's endgame is entering view, and the market has priced the rearmament trade as if it were not. Defense stocks face a cyclical de-rating as the probability of negotiation rises — but the structural rearmament floor, built on order backlogs measured in tens of billions, means the correction is a pause in a longer uptrend, not its end. The peace trade is real; it just does not belong entirely to the defense sector.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
