Geopolitical shocks reprice sovereign default risk directly; geoeconomic shocks bypass default risk and transmit through expected monetary policy and the global financial cycle. We document this distinction -- a ``scissors pattern'' in which the Direct and Global Financial Cycle channels of sovereign CDS spreads move in opposite directions -- using a daily panel of 42 advanced and emerging economies over 2018--2025. A Shapley--Taylor decomposition of nonlinear machine-learning predictions partitions each observation's spread into four channels: Direct, Global Financial Cycle, Uncertainty, and Local. Panel local projections under narrative identification around four dated crisis events recover the scissors at the 1\% significance level for Russia--Ukraine and confirm 15 of 16 event--channel predictions. A placebo falsification shows that all four episodes exceed at least 83\% of random non-event dates, with different channels exiting the envelope for each shock type. Geopolitical direct effects decay with distance from the conflict zone, while policy-uncertainty shocks activate the Uncertainty channel globally.The taxonomy implies that liquidity provision can address financial-cycle-mediated spread widening, but not the persistent component of geopolitical risk premia.

翻译：地缘政治冲击会直接对主权违约风险进行重新定价；地缘经济冲击则绕过违约风险，通过预期货币政策和全球金融周期进行传导。我们利用2018年至2025年间42个发达和新兴经济体的日度面板数据，记录了这种区别——一种“剪刀差模式”，即主权信用违约互换（CDS）利差的直接传导渠道和全球金融周期传导渠道呈相反方向变动。通过对非线性机器学习预测进行沙普利-泰勒分解，我们将每个观测到的利差分解为四个渠道：直接渠道、全球金融周期渠道、不确定性渠道和本地渠道。围绕四个有明确日期记录的危机事件进行叙事识别下的面板局部投影分析，在1%的显著性水平上恢复了俄罗斯-乌克兰事件中的剪刀差模式，并证实了16个事件-渠道预测中的15个。安慰剂证伪检验表明，所有四个事件期的结果均超过至少83%的随机非事件日期，且不同冲击类型下，各渠道脱离置信区间的模式不同。地缘政治的直接效应随着与冲突区域距离的增加而衰减，而政策不确定性冲击则在全球范围内激活了不确定性渠道。该分类体系意味着，流动性供给可以应对由金融周期传导的利差扩大，但无法消除地缘政治风险溢价的持久性成分。