This market resolves YES if:
An armistice, ceasefire, or negotiated settlement is announced by both Ukraine and Russia regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine at any point between the Associated Press calling the election for Donald Trump, and April 19, 2025, 11:59 PM ET.
To count toward the resolution of this market, an armistice, ceasefire, and/or negotiated settlement must be indicative of at least the temporary end of the Ukraine-Russia military conflict, must pertain to all theaters of military conflict between the two countries, and be declared through official channels by both countries. The specific date that such an agreement will take effect is not relevant to the resolution of this market. The only requirement is that the agreement must be announced within this market's specified timeframe.
To count toward the resolution of this market, an armistice, ceasefire, and/or negotiated settlement must be indicative of at least the temporary end of the Ukraine-Russia military conflict, must pertain to all theaters of military conflict between the two countries, and be declared through official channels by both countries.
See also Polymarket's market.
See also:
Update 2025-07-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Comprehensive Ceasefire: A ceasefire that means 'nobody can fight at all for the next week' would count as a temporary end to the conflict.
Localized Ceasefire: A ceasefire that means 'no fighting in this little area but everywhere else is fine' would not count.
1,000
Ceasefire for energy and Black Sea. Witkoff estimates that general ceasefire should happen within about 2 weeks of the Black Sea ceasefire
Not quite yet: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/mar/25/europe-russia-us-ukraine-security-blunder-latest-live-news-updates
"Russia said it would commit to a Black Sea truce once US sanctions are lifted on key financial institutions supporting its food exports."
@TimothyJohnson5c16 Russia getting back to full fertilizer and food exports will lower the price of corn. Corn is used to feed cows and other animals, which will lower beef and milk prices. Food inflation can lower for USA, Africa and Middle east by late in 2025. Win, win for US to speed this up. Lower inflation will mean easier to lower interest rates.
@beaver1 Polymarket is at ~17% for this.
No meaningful shift in facts on the ground once Kursk is settled. Neither side is hurt by a ceasefire to work out land exchange. US can take control of disputed reactors (and other assets) and disputed areas can go to neutral de-militarized zones.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-24-2025
@brianwang There are still many conditions to determine, like whether the US will still be sending supplies to Ukraine during the ceasefire. I expect that to be a sticking point.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 this is the big question but it seems like the solution is to take a page from hamas' playbook: 1/ stop direct aid 2/ put a US interest on the frontline to create a modicum of security guarantee 3/ prevent backdooring nuclear capabilities
everyone will violate that treaty but it will still be a stable equilibrium, like the bangladeshi border lol
@beaver1 And you think the mineral deal that the US was negotiating with Ukraine will work for step 2? Does Trump still plan to sign that?
@brianwang Trump is vehemently against the US importing food so it seems off-brand to champion a peace deal because it would let the US import cheaper corn.
@MartinRandall It would reduce the global price of fertilizer. The US would not have to import it. It is like reducing global oil prices by shifting global supply and demand. Lower fertilizer cost then boosts corn production The US imports about Half of its fertilizer. 46% from Canada. But also from Russia, Saudi Arabia and other places
@brianwang yeah who cares about the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that have been murdered, tortured, raped. Crimes against humanity are just chill?
@brianwang What I want is to give Ukraine the support they need to win. And that's what Ukraine wants too. As Zelenskyy famously said, "I need ammunition, not a ride."
That's the only way to actually end the war. Zelenskyy knows that a peace treaty with Russia isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless there's some real security guarantee. They may wait a year or two to rebuild their forces, but they'll be back soon enough.
Russia's manpower advantage is hard to overcome, but it's not impossible. The problem is that they also have a huge supply advantage as well. Last I saw, Russia was producing 3x more artillery shells than all of NATO combined: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html.
We should have started ramping up production of drones and artillery shells for Ukraine three years ago, but the next-best thing would be to do it now.
@brianwang for someone who is "logically, militarily, and morally correct" you seem to be pretty bad at predicting things. Perhaps you'd be better off questioning some of your assumptions rather than expressing high degrees of confidence about what outcomes will be better for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 Zelensky said the statement about needing ammo before he lost another 15% of this country. 5% lost in 2014. in the last 2 month Russia has reclaimed most of Kursk. Russia has been grinding out slow advances for years. Money and weapons from Europe and USA...still losing. Russia made some mistakes and had trouble dealing Himars. They figured out those problems. 1.3-1.4 million fully mobilized and 500-700K active in Ukraine now. There is no rebuilding. They are active and deployed. Facts on the ground. Ukraine is still losing. the more delays to a ceasefire, the closer Russia gets to picking off Pokrovsk. IF Europe or the US last year have could come up with weapons or a plan to throw Russia back in Kursk or Donetsk, they would have. No one in the continue the fighting has a plan to stop losing territory let alone actually retake major territory.
Russia Pressuring three cities.
Pokrovsk: A critical logistical hub northwest of Donetsk city, Pokrovsk has been under threat since Russian forces advanced west of Selydove and Kurakhove. It’s a major rail and road junction, and its encirclement would sever a vital artery for Ukrainian forces.
Toretsk: Located northeast of Donetsk, Toretsk has seen intense fighting, with Ukraine regaining some ground recently, but Russian pressure persists. Its near-encirclement would weaken Ukrainian defenses in the northern Donetsk sector.
Kostyantynivka: Positioned between Pokrovsk and Toretsk, this town is another logistical node that Russian advances are approaching, potentially isolating it from broader Ukrainian lines.
Losing these cities would collapse Ukraine’s defensive line in Donetsk, exposing adjacent areas like Kramatorsk and Sloviansk to direct assault. The loss of high ground, urban fortifications, and prepared positions would leave Ukrainian forces in open terrain, where Russia’s superior artillery and drone capabilities could dominate. The psychological blow would also weaken morale, as these cities represent key holdouts against Russian advances since 2022.
Encirclement and capture of these hubs would enable Russia to “blossom” outward, as seen after Kurakhove’s fall, where rapid advances followed. With supply lines severed and defenses fragmented, Russia could push toward the Dnepropetrovsk border or south toward Zaporizhzhia, gaining hundreds of square kilometers.
@brianwang this reads like you told chatgpt to create russian propaganda to boost the morale of twitter bots.
@dgga Ukraine is not winning, has been losing and is still losing. The claim is more money and gear will turn it around. How many hundreds of billions per year? What needs to be bought? I think it would be doubling money from Europe and USA to stop the lost land. Tripling to start taking land. Still heading to 3-5 year running out of men to field an effective force. A surge in funding might stop Russia from taking land next year. But Ukraine has not been effectively training the replacement soldiers. The experienced troops are trying to hold the front. IF Ukraine was going to show the ability to launch an offensive, they would do it now as we critical negotiations are happening. The EU has gear in their forces. They could speed up and give more ammo and gear...nothing is happening. There is about $15 trillion of GDP in Europe. IF this really mattered then pull forward $300 billion and send more right away. Change the facts on the ground. Lead the way and show the US what is to be done. The OTHER FACT- the US election had the war as a key part of it. Most in the US voted against the war. The war costs 133 million US households. $2000-3000 per US household over the last three years. Plus it increases the cost of corn, wheat, fertilizer and natural gas. Another $3000 per household over the last three years. inflation and interest rates increased. This war makes food and energy cost more in Africa and Middle east. What is the story or plan to get to a win and why is it worth $2000+ per year to every american household and make things difficult to eat and live for every African and Middle Eastern person.
@brianwang I think we agree that dragging out a bloody war of attrition is a very bad outcome for both Ukraine and Russia. The difference is that Russia could end the war any time they want by packing up and going home. Ukraine's only alternative is to surrender, and they've decided that they would rather defend themselves. Bribing Putin to go away and hoping that he doesn't come back in a year or two isn't a real solution.
I'm not sure about the overall economic impact on the US - increased military spending has both positive and negative effects, and I don't think we'll resolve that here.
Guys, the point of the market is not to decide which side should win the war. What predictions we make has nothing to do with what outcomes we prefer. Brian is a blowhard, a braggart, a shameless liar, and a terrible self proclaimed futurologist. Still he may be right about the best realistic outcome all things considered. But again, that’s not the question. The idea, surprisingly widespread in this comments section, that betting NO means being pro war or even pro Ukraine is a sign of low decoupling.
deleted
@Bayesian I think it's time for a mute. This @brianwang guy is out of control and his rhetoric is inflammatory.