Last year, Russian cruise missiles overflew Romania en route to Ukraine. If this year a cruise missile or drone impacted Romania, would that resolve this market YES? Would it matter whether the impact was unintentional (eg due to a mechanical failure or interception), or would the original decision to have the route go through NATO territory be sufficient to establish that Russia meant it as an attack?

@Jwags good point. I will judge by whether or not Article 4 or 5 are invoked. Sound fair?

@Lorelai That's a fair and easily measurable way to decide it. Thanks!

@Lorelai Then you should at least clarify that in the market description.

Also, this change means this market isn't about whether Russia attacks a NATO country but about whether NATO will invoke Article 4 or 5 due to an attack by Russia. In my opinion these two things have different probabilities and thus the market title is misleading.

@CertaintyOfVictory the word attack connotes intention. spillover isn't an intentional attack on a NATO country. This market will continue to be about whether or not Russia attacks. I will however clarify that this means physical assault as opposed to e.g. cyberattacks.

@Lorelai Thanks, I think I'll steer clear of this market.

@CertaintyOfVictory oh well, big loss for us I'm sure

From Putin's perspective, a Trump/Trumpist coming to power in the US is a lower-cost, lower-risk way to neuter NATO than going around attacking a NATO country. He doesn't have INFINITE resources at his disposal.