How will Putin retaliate against the US after Biden officially authorizes nearly $60B in new military aid for Ukraine?

Ṁ620

Ṁ760

resolved Jul 3

ALL

39%11%

Bombs Ukraine with strong focus on Russian-speaking part and USA-sourced Ukrainian weaponry. Announces this to be retaliation, despite that he would do it anyway.

18%5%

Gets blackout drunk on vodka and pegged by Maria Butina at a Bunga Bunga party

15%4%

Russian army captures remainder of Luhansk

14%4%

Has foreign minister propose direct peace talks between himself and Zelenskyy

8%2%

Russian army captures remainder of Luhansk and Donbas

6%1.7%

Fentanyl lollipop

5%Other

0.2%

Tactical Nuke

0.0%

Hypersonic missile strike on US weapons while still enroute to Ukraine on NATO soil

0.0%

Atmospheric nuclear test

0.1%

Putin pulls out of Donbas sends Russian forces back to prewar posture.

16%

No significant retaliation

0.0%

Mass mobilization and forced conscription through formal declaration of war

0.0%

Definitely not “no significant reaction”

0.2%

Putin abdicates

51%

Angry flexing in Alaska's general direction, followed by silent weeping in his office closet.

0.0%

Bombs Ukraine with strong focus on Russian-speaking part. Announces this to be retaliation, despite that he would do it anyway.

Resolution will be determined based on actions taken by Russia directly against US persons or property. Be creative with responses.

Get Ṁ200 play money

🏅 Top traders

#	Name	Total profit
1		Ṁ24
2		Ṁ2

18 Comments

10 Holders

39 Trades

Sort by:

@MattP can’t have that.

@BTE I am disappoint.

@MattP Indeed, this is why I said in the description "be creative with responses". I was always most likely to choose the best Putin burn.

And in favor of resolving to this answer.... I doubt you'll have any particular specific evidence for or against this answer by market close, so the only sensible thing to do is resolve to what seems most likely given what we know of old Vladdyboy Poot-Poot.

@MattP We need more answers like this!! Who can paint the weakest, most pathetic picture of Vlad the Impaler using nothing but words??

@MattP So far this is probably the most plausible answer.

sold Ṁ19

Some things that I would consider "significant retaliation": - Any attack on a target in a NATO country (including a strike on weapons en route to Ukraine while still inside NATO) - Use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine Some things I wouldn't consider significant retaliation: - Conventional ramping up of forces within Ukraine, ie deploying more troops, mass mobilization etc. - Atmospheric nuclear test. Both of these, especially the latter, are significant *responses*, but they don't represent *retaliation* - they aren't punishing NATO for going too far, just punishing Ukraine, or *threatening* NATO with punishment. Just to clarify my beliefs, I think the current 38% is way too high for this outcome, and have sold my stake.

@EigilRischel I appreciate this explanation. I realize now that I could have chosen my words for this question more carefully, as I prefer *response* to *retaliation*. In fact, I am going to change the wording now. Thank you for helping me see the flaw with the way I asked the question.

I guess you can't change question titles after they are published. But I will add this clarification to the description.

@EigilRischel So do you mean no escalation of conflict beyond current parameters? Or do you mean no significant retaliation compared to the other answers given below? What I was getting at with the question is the fact that this is an unprecedented escalation by the US, it is literally 5 orders of magnitude more aid than we ever provided Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Ukraine now has the most well equipped military force in Europe. They dwarf the capability of a fully operationalized NATO force with this aid. So "no significant retaliation" seems like not an answer that makes sense considering all of the warnings Putin gave for months telling the US not to follow through with this package. Like what is the concrete action or rhetoric associated with your answer by Putin?

> it [$60B] is literally 5 orders of magnitude more aid than we ever provided Iraq and Afghanistan combined Uh, I think you added or dropped some zeroes somewhere? This is nowhere close to right.

@JamesBabcock Maybe you could say I generously rounded up, but $60B is not as far off as you imply. Total US military aid alone since start of invasion is $54B (https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-congress-spend-more-ukraine-us-roads-bridges-1707002). Admittedly I was also lumping in the rest of NATO because the EU has spent approximately $2B (https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-to-increase-military-support-fund-for-ukraine-2-billion/) plus $5B in humanitarian aid not to mention spending on refugees, and finally the UK has so far contributed $1.3B in military support (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-provide-13-billion-pounds-further-military-support-ukraine-2022-05-07/). So it was poorly worded, my bad, but I was much closer to the right number than I bet you thought I was!!

@BTE The US has spent on the order of ~1T each on Iraq and Afghanistan. $60B is not five orders of magnitude more than that, it's 1-2 orders of magnitude less.

@JamesBabcock $1T was mostly humanitarian aid, not military aid. The actual amount of security aid given by the US to Afghanistan over 20 YEARS was $88B. Last year when we left Afghanistan we gave them about $2B and then cut them off completely. Most of the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq was on US personnel too, not the local militias. We have given Ukraine nearly $60B in less than 4 MONTHS and we are far from finished. These are not even comparable. The scale of the investment in Ukraine dwarfs anything we ever did in Afghanistan or Iraq. Like what is your point though? Nothing you are saying has anything to do with the question. How about a comment on what you think Putin will do??

@BTE My point was very specific and very narrow: that the "literally 5 orders of magnitude" claim was a fake number. I'm not interested in having a broader conversation than that, at least in this context.