This market will resolve YES if and when Wikipedia's English page on the Russo-Ukrainian War (or the nearest equivalent if that page no longer exists) lists in its infobox "Result: Ukrainian victory", and I am satisfied that this is not part of an edit war.
It will also resolve YES if the result describes the victor as some coalition of which Ukraine is a part, or describes the outcome in terms of the defeated side being Russia or some coalition of which Russia is a part.
Any other "result" after the war is no longer described by Wikipedia as "ongoing" will cause the market to resolve NO, including hedged statements like "Partial Ukrainian victory" or "Ukrainian victory with territorial losses".
Resolution only depends on the first, non-dotpoint statement in the "result" section of the infobox. If hedging/concessions follow the intitial statement as dotpoints, or if they appear in the body of the article, this is not relevant to resolution. If the "result" comprises only dotpoints, the market will resolve NO.
The closing date for this market will be extended as needed until the market can resolve.
Related questions
Maybe. Whoever is president in 2025 inherits a situation where Russia is permanently weakened. On the battlefield, 2025 is the year where much of the remaining soviet stock (tanks, artillery) runs out for good. Ukraine is steadily climbing the ladder of capabilities with much better weapons. It will likely achieve both air superiority over the battlefield and superiority in artillery fires some time in 2025. It matters if the US completely cuts funding after the inauguration, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as if this had occurred in 2023-2024
Of course if the US chooses to continue supporting Ukraine from 2025 onwards, then it's a complete knockout for Russia. To a great extent this is the equilibrium that's already priced in. It's more likely that this market will respond to domestic realities on the battlefield as opposed to foreign political theater.
With or without US "support", I'm not optimistic for anything resembling a Ukrainian victory.
1) The type of "support" the US is giving is not likely to lead to a decisive victory. It has, from the start, been provided grudgingly wrt any advanced weapons systems, and the lower-tech arms -- basically a DoD yard sale of old toys -- has run its course. In terms of new production, the Arsenal of Democracy has proven itself incompetent at meaningfully expanding production capabilities for items such as 155mm artillery (the Boeingification of the country). The arms are enough for a continuous war of attrition, and nothing more.
2) Russia will not stop ever; this is a cultural thing, where a high degree of fatalism and an unhealthy obsession with The Great Patriotic War combine into a single-mindedness (or nihilistic attitude) where casualty figures do not matter, outside of a few cosmopolitan areas that have been infected with western memes. Russia has >3x the population of Ukraine and the West is certainly not sending troops to help.
3) I believe the generally pro-Ukrainian bias in reporting has underestimated the toll on Ukraine manpower, etc. and that even with additional gear from the West, they will struggle to launch offensives to retake any large amounts of land. Russia may run low on some gear, but will figure out a way, at least, to acquire enough basics to freeze the lines.
So the likeliest outcome as both sides attrit each other to a standstill is a frozen war of lowering intensity. In that case, the only question is: should the West accept the facts on the ground via brokering a settlement, or should we pretend otherwise and have an unresolved conflict forever on the outskirts of Europe?
1) yes the US is effectively decommissioning old stock by giving it to Ukraine. What the whole world has seen, however, is that western weapons from the 80s-90s far outclass the latest Russian equipment from the 2020s. The west has a very significant latent ability to upgrade Ukrainian capabilities, and it is a function only of political will. This is not contingent on the continued engagement of the US. Germany alone could outproduce Russia in terms of hardware if it chose to do so.
2) this is part of the disinformation campaign. The goal is to encourage western policymakers to self deter because "oooh the russians won't ever stop". It is complete nonsense. Russia is not the soviet union. Russian history is a litany of military catastrophes provoked by strategic incompetence.
3) Ukraine only just lowered its recruitment age from 27 to 25. They have plenty of available manpower. It is again a question of political will.
The demographic context of the Soviet Union during WW2 was completely different to Russia in the 2020s. They had a large manpower pool to draw on because their population pyramid was completely different. Despite this, the soviet union still managed to sacrifice a huge chunk of its future population growth on one war. Russia does not have that option, losing over a million young men would devastate the country.
My thoughts on Russian determination is based on my exposure to Russian culture (prior to the war), so is not based on disinformation per se. I actually haven't been tracking the recent conversation on this topic that closely. I did read some Kamil Galeev stuff early on, which was bullish on Russian state dissolution (was that the actual disinformation?)...but I suppose we will see.
However, in terms of war production, I am not at all reassured by the theoretical possibility that Germany could go into a wartime economic mode to buttress Ukraine. They have shown no signs of even wanting to do that. As an example, so far, they have delivered in total an equivalent amount of 155mm shells to what Russia produces in 12 days.
Right, but Russia is the aggressor. If Ukraine stops fighting then Ukraine stops existing. The USSR had an overarching ideology that was effective at sustaining morale because soldiers thought they were fighting for a better future. Modern Russia has none of that. It's morale that breaks armies. Russia lost "only" 70k soldiers in the war against Japan and that was enough to push the country into crisis.
In terms of this question, what matters is that Ukraine recaptures territory, since if they do not, I can hardly see how they will negotiate a settlement where this resolves YES. That means Ukraine must make offensive gains, which is a much costlier thing to do than defending well-fortified lines. I agree that Ukraine has been put into a position where it is in fact fighting an existential war, but that ignores the geopolitical view extant in Russia that their struggle is likewise existential (yes, that's crazy, but I think it's true many believe this).
Sure, but reality matters. It's already over for Russia as a significant power. It can barely fight a war 50km from its own borders. The "existential" nature of this war for Russia is a function of how deep it chooses to dig itself into a hole. Every choice that includes making concessions to Ukraine: returning territory, paying reparations etc, leads to a better long term outcome. There is no positive outcome for the country if it continues to occupy parts of Ukraine. This is why starting this war was such a profound strategic defeat.
I agree that it's entirely plausible the current front line will remain frozen for ten years, but that would be a catastrophic outcome for Russia. The regime would have to go deep into fascist ideology in order to keep society under its control. This would have significant repercussions and likely lead to separatist movements, particularly in the East. China would do everything in its power to capitalise on this.
Totally agree with your last points. Ukraine was clearly a massive miscalculation by Russia since they needed to do a quick knockout of Kiev to achieve their overall objectives (which was due to insufficient manpower and a degraded military capability, as you mention; compare the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia).
And secretly I think the US and maybe Europe is perfectly satisfied with the current situation. For minimal investment, they can ensure Russian military power keeps getting expended into a hopeless war. The West will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and all that.
I think the most likely scenario which would lead to a YES resolution is where Russia suffers a humiliating defeat on the battlefield, without necessarily a major offensive from Ukraine. This leads to a crisis within the regime, and then some form of a coup. The new regime blames everything on the corruption of the previous one, and makes concessions to Ukraine in order to guarantee its own survival.
Of course not sarcasm. Just look at Alex's picture; such a kind and honest face. That's the result of years of truth and positive energy coming from sincere and kind-hearted journalists like Solovyov. Putin prices truth so high, that he even had to suppress his deeply rooted humanism and order the killing of some journalists spreading propaganda