????隨著烏克蘭局勢的起起伏伏成為地緣政治領域的主導話題——確實也應該是這樣——許多國際市場投資者都開始考慮烏克蘭局勢對他們的投資到底意味著什么。下面是筆者的一些主要觀點：

????就烏克蘭本身而言，它不具有系統重要性。烏克蘭的GDP規模較小（約為1750億美元），外部經濟聯系有限，在全球供需鏈條上的作用同樣有限。實際上，除了從俄羅斯通往歐洲的天然氣管道，在烏克蘭交易或擁有的東西中，無論是實體產品、服務，還是金融工具，國際經濟和貨幣體系無力輕松消化吸收的東西不多。此外，烏克蘭貨幣的全球覆蓋面很小，發行的債券也較少。除了新興市場，現有的烏克蘭債券不太可能對其他金融市場造成真正的、或者技術性的沖擊。

????但東西方在烏克蘭問題上僵持不下，結果無法預料。這當然是問題的關鍵所在，它讓烏克蘭更具有系統性色彩。也正是出于這個原因，投資者探究烏克蘭局勢的現狀和潛在發展方向是正確的選擇。如果保持目前的發展方向，隨著世界強國之間的地緣政治局勢變得越來越緊張，金融市場可能最終還是會受到影響。從某種程度上講，眼下已經出現了這種情況，表現最明顯的就是今天上午俄羅斯股市的急劇下跌以及一批資金開始流向國際上更為安全的市場。

????目前，烏克蘭內部和外部勢力都還沒有強大到可以按自己的意愿行事。在外部軍事干預沒有壓倒性優勢的情況下（具備壓倒性優勢的軍事干預將產生極不確定的結果，不可避免地造成相當大的混亂），很難斷言任何一方有望在今后幾周占據絕對優勢。俄羅斯對烏克蘭的影響力不足以把后者拉回到自己的軌道，而且俄羅斯不能通過武力途徑達到這個目的。歐盟和美國方面則缺乏讓烏克蘭完全倒向另一邊的手段。就這些外部勢力的現狀而言，處于局部分裂狀態的烏克蘭社會不太可能讓國內的緊張局勢很快緩和下來。

????樂觀情況下，各方都會冷靜下來，申明將通過協商找到折中方案。鑒于各方都發現自己開上了一條單行道，而且如果問題只是烏克蘭本身，俄羅斯和西方國家很快就會發現，讓局勢緩和下來、同時找到折中方案既利己又互惠。原則上它們應該通過協商找到解決方案。在這種情況下，它們還可能為烏克蘭國內的反對派圈定柵欄。但目前面臨風險的遠不止此。

????包括敘利亞在內，各個地區的地緣政治裂隙都在加深，烏克蘭只是這種趨勢的最新代表。這種情況不可避免地造成了國家戰略復雜化，同時大大增加了實現多邊合作的難度。它還造成相關各方都難以拒絕國內選民提出的范圍較窄的議題，而這些議題引發的輿論無外乎制裁、抵制和八國集團（G8）的失靈。

????就算按照一系列最樂觀（但依然現實）的假設，烏克蘭的緊張局勢也不會在一、兩個回合內就得到化解。即使當前的緊張局勢緩和下來——這里面有很大的假設成分——我們仍然應該預計今后幾個月烏克蘭將一而再、再而三地給人們出難題。我們都清楚地看到，對抗勢力的外部秘密渠道可能有力地促使烏克蘭社會出現分裂。到目前為止，烏克蘭既不能恢復原狀，也無法果斷地開創新的局面。

????總之，國際市場投資者對烏克蘭提出了許許多多的問題，這么做沒錯。要點在于，絕大多數人都需要在大背景下尋找答案，而這會立刻帶來最基本、同時也是最有爭議的問題。那就是，烏克蘭是不是僅僅只是全球政治合作效果減弱這個更令人擔心的重大問題及其內在緊張態勢的最新例證而已？

????我擔心人們會對這個問題做出肯定回答。如果你們同意我的觀點，那就是說，一些存在風險的市場到目前為止可能還沒有充分表現出全部的地緣政治風險。（財富中文網）

????本文作者穆罕默德?埃爾-埃利安是太平洋投資管理公司即將離任的首席執行官兼聯合首席投資官。

????譯者：Charlie

????

????With the fluid situation in Ukraine dominating the geopolitical narrative -- and rightly so -- many global investors are wondering what it means for their portfolios. Here are some key takeaways:

????On a standalone basis, Ukraine is not systemically important. With a relatively small GDP (around $175 billion), its external economic links are limited, as is its role in global supply and demand chains. Indeed, other than gas pipelines form Russia to Europe, there isn't much that Ukraine buys, hosts, or sells -- whether physical products, services, or financial instruments -- that cannot be easily absorbed by the international economic and monetary systems. Moreover, its currency has little global reach; and the country's bond issuance is relatively small, with holdings unlikely to create real or technical financial market shocks beyond segments of the emerging world.

????Yet Ukraine is in the midst of an unpredictable tug of war between East and West. This, of course, is the key issue; it is what makes Ukraine more systemic; and it is why investors are correct in seeking information about the situation there and how it may evolve. If the current course of action is maintained, the escalating geopolitical tensions among major world powers would end up by spilling over to financial markets. This is already occurring to some extent, illustrated most vividly by the sharp decline this morning in Russian equities and some generalized flight to quality in global markets.

????No side, whether internal or external, is strong enough to impose its will at this stage. Absent overwhelming outside military intervention (whose outcomes would be far from certain, and its chaos would be considerable and inevitable), it is hard to argue that any single side is in a position to prevail decisively in the next few weeks. Russia does not have sufficient influence with enough of Ukraine to pull the whole country back into its orbit; and it cannot do so by force. For their part, the European Union and the United States do not have the means to decisively pull all of Ukraine the other way. And the reality of these external anchors means that a partly fragmented Ukrainian society is unlikely to resolve the tensions internally any time soon.

????In favorable circumstances, calmer heads would prevail and iterate to a negotiated compromise. Given the cul de sac that all parties find themselves in, and if the issue were just Ukraine, both Russia and the West would quickly conclude that it is in their individual and collective interests to de-escalate the situation and reach a compromise. A negotiated resolution would be the base case. As such, they would also be able to establish some guardrails for opposing political forces within Ukraine. But there is much more at stake here.

????Ukraine is but the latest illustration of a deeper geopolitical rift that has played out elsewhere, including in Syria. This inevitably complicates national strategies, while rendering multilateral cooperation much more difficult. It also makes it hard for all parties involved to resist the narrower agendas of domestic constituents -- all of which give rise to talk of sanctions, boycotts, and G-8 malfunctions.

????Even under a set of most optimistic (and still-realistic) assumptions, the tensions over Ukraine will not be resolved in one or two rounds. If the immediate tensions subsides -- a big if -- we should still expect difficult Ukrainian issues to resurface over and over again in the next few months. As well as what we all observe publicly, competing external back channels could well fuel divisions within a Ukrainian society that, as yet, is neither able to return to its past nor able to forge a decisive new course.

????In sum, global investors are right to be asking lots of questions about Ukraine. Importantly, the vast majority needs to do so in a broad context and, thus, immediately confront the most basic -- and, yes, most contentious -- question of all: Is Ukraine simply the latest example of a more disturbing general phenomenon of less effective global political coordination, and the tensions that inherently come with that?

????I worry that the answer to this question is yes. If you agree with me, then overall geopolitical risk may not, as yet, be adequately reflected in some risk markets.

????Mohamed A. El-Erian is the outgoing CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO.