Just don't let the wild weekend in Russia be just a premeditated move to exterminate the rats and move the experienced troops to Belarus for the eventual opening of a second front.

More on commodities. In my opinion, it appears that Russia's production is almost negligible in all items and can be replaced quickly enough and at an acceptable cost if necessary. Taken globally, of course, there are and will be individual turbulences, but these are very difficult to predict. The only lesson to be learnt from developments to date is that they are solvable.

Globally, the impacts so far are almost zero. Global capitalism has shown tremendous flexibility (remember how a few well-known morons shouted that without Russian gas we would freeze to death) and if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons nobody would be too concerned. It's obviously a huge disaster and I support Doctors Without Borders and Man in a Thousand as much as I can. But according to economic theory, any war contributes to overall economic growth. (It's logical when you think of the consumption of armies and how much of what is destroyed has to be replaced).

We're having a nice Monday, I read on the peacock that Deutsche Bank has told clients that it can no longer guarantee full access to the Russian stocks they own.

The commodity markets will be busy at most, otherwise not. It's just a shame the rebellion ended as quickly as it began. The breakup of Russia would have been the ideal outcome of that "three day operation".

Well after a turbulent weekend in Russia and a failed revolt in the Chechen National Guard, I expect investors to be cautious. Russia is key to the markets because of its role as a major producer and exporter of energy commodities. Any internal political problems in Russia could therefore potentially threaten these supplies and create uncertainty in the markets.