In this case, the definition of coup means that someone or a group of people made a serious effort and progress towards removing Putin. It's not just some death threat or protest. Sorry if it's a vague description.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,344 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,005 | |
| 3 | Ṁ969 | |
| 4 | Ṁ883 | |
| 5 | Ṁ843 |
@797a it takes one person to write some brllliant prose arguing that it happened in June that sways everybody.
@33cb I think it did already happen, although I don' t think it will be resolved that way.
I think this is at least 50% chance that the Wagner rebellion included top-ranking Russian military officials making a (failed) attempt to replace Putin, based on the current info we have available. Hopefully the situation becomes clearer as more info comes out.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/europe/russia-surovikin-prigozhin-questions-intl/index.html
Surovikin has been the subject of intense speculation over his role in the mutiny after the New York Times reported on Wednesday that the general “had advance knowledge of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s plans to rebel against Russia’s military leadership.” The paper cited US officials who it said were briefed on US intelligence.
On Wednesday, the Russian-language version of the independent Moscow Times cited two anonymous defense sources as saying that Surovikin had been arrested in relation to the failed mutiny. CNN has been unable to independently verify that claim.
Documents shared exclusively with CNN suggest that a top Russian military commander, Gen. Sergey Surovikin, was a secret VIP member of Wagner, the private military company that staged a brief rebellion exposing disunity among senior Russian military officials.
Related:
Ruslan Leviev, a head of Conflict Intelligence Team (an independent pro-Ukrainian OSINT organization originating in Russia) in a recent video says that Prigozhin didn't attack Moscow because his goals likely were saving his own ass and getting himself guarantees of safety.
Essentially Prigozhin and Russian MoD had a long-standing conflict, MoD made an ultimatum to Wagner to sign a contract with MoD before 1st of July. He also says that Prigozhin heard than "an unfavorable decision made w/r/t Prigozhin" (i.e. probably arrest or death).
So people who claim that the goal of Prigozhin were to remove Putin and replace the government, what would be your counter-arguments to Prigozhin doing this mutiny out of the fear of his own safety?
Note: we might not know about "an unfavorable decision", but the conflict with MoD is public, the requirement to sign a contract with MoD is also public, Prigozhin independence being a pain-in-the-ass for Russian government is also public. And Putin and Russian government in general is not exactly known to follow the rule of the law.
well, currently I’m basing this market decision over my original definition which is that it has to be with the intent of a regime change. I don’t think Pizohan meant it as a regime change but instead a means of leveraging power. Of course I realize that’s a very narrow definition of coup and if it wasn’t for this initial condition, I would have said YES. If people believe that we should go with a different more general definition rather than the original specification then that may be the best choice since many interpretated the market based on that. Sorry if it’s all a little unclear. When I first made this market I honestly didn’t think this would happen and didn’t define it super well.
@GavinMcCarthyBui I would also like to add that the events of yesterday were so serious, I would bet that it may soon trigger a full blown coup with an attempt at regime change.
changing my stance. this was def. not a coup. but just a small uprising. i agree w u now actually. it's easier to switch.
@CertaintyOfVictory if this doesn't change in the next few days I think @GavinMcCarthyBui should reconsider their decision
@AlexbGoode Wikipedia does not currently list this as an attempted coup! Can't see any argument about it on the talk page either.
@GavrielK It did. You can see it in the edit log. For the record: I did not edit this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Certainty_of_Victory)
@CertaintyOfVictory Yep, I see it in the edit log (didn’t know where to look before), but anyway was mostly responding to the comment that if Wikipedia leaves it up, Gavin should reconsider.
Great that Gavin made his final decision, but it's unbelievable whar he decided. There was significant progress (they stopped very near Moscow, they took control of a city, they did propaganda, etc) as also it was very serious (it demanded a speech from Putin, it had real time coverage by the media...). He can argue that it hadn't the objective of removing Putin, but it's very hard when all stakeholders (including Prigozhin at some point) said it was about Putin.
@MP I don't think it's unbelievable and I think the market creator is acting in good faith. There is some ambiguity about what happened. If we look at the media the term coup is not used uniformly. While my local newspapers all call it a coup the economist and wall street journal call it an insurrection. Some are using the word mutiny.
The take away is never bet a market with badly designed resolution criteria (like this one) to high percentages. I also got burned by this several times. I recommend betting on @jack's markets for these types of questions. Maybe you can also ask them to create a question you wish to bet on.
@AlexbGoode Seconded. I personally sold a lot of my cheap NO at 76% and 96% but left half of my shares because selling them was cheap and there was a chance of it wouldn't cross a to a full-blown obvious coup.
Not betting to high enough percentages on ambiguous markets is a good advice. It's also good to consider all possible alternative interpretation of the market resolution criteria.
I do think there is enough ambiguity that not resolving this market YES is reasonable.
@AlexbGoode the market creator is totally acting in good faith, I am sure of that. Doesn't make the decision more believable