Definition of “US military action"
Any of the following qualify:
Kinetic military activity by US armed forces in, over, or against Venezuelan territory, including:
Airstrikes, missile strikes, drone strikes, or bombardments
Special forces raids
Use of US military assets in a directly offensive operation
Deployment of US combat troops into Venezuelan territory
Includes Marines, Army, Special Forces
Does not include embassy security reinforcements unless they fire weapons in an offensive capacity
US military engagement with Venezuelan state forces
Any firefight, exchange of fire, or confirmed military fatalities/injuries attributed to US armed forces
US Navy/Coast Guard sinking, disabling, or firing upon Venezuelan state military vessels
Only counts if the action is confirmed as intentional use of force, not an accident or misidentification event later publicly retracted
Exclusions (resolves NO unless escalation occurs)
These do not count as “military action”:
Purely economic sanctions
Purely cyber operations unless a US military official confirms they are an act of war
Naval patrols, freedom-of-navigation, or routine intercepts without weapons fire
Support to third parties (e.g., intelligence, training, equipment) unless US forces participate in combat
CIA or covert actions not publicly acknowledged
Non-offensive evacuations of US embassy personnel
Defense of US assets outside Venezuela (e.g., Caribbean theater)
Resolution Source Hierarchy
If sources conflict:
Department of Defense official press release
U.S. government press briefing transcript
Reuters / AP / AFP
Other reputable international outlets
If initial reports are later formally retracted by sources at levels (1)-(3), the retraction takes precedence.
Examples of What Would Resolve YES
A US drone fires a missile at a target in Venezuela
US Marines conduct a raid on Venezuelan soil
US fighter jets strike a Venezuelan military base or convoy
A US naval vessel fires upon and disables a Venezuelan Navy vessel
US troops cross into Venezuela in a combat operation
Examples of What Would Not Resolve YES
Sanctions on PDVSA or Venezuelan officials
US Navy vessel interdiction of non-state smuggling boats
US troops in Colombia or Guyana without crossing into Venezuela
Reports of “US involvement” that later turn out to be Colombian, Brazilian, or other forces
Covert CIA activity never acknowledged publicly
Final Resolution
Market resolves YES if any qualifying event occurs; otherwise NO on the resolution date.
Update 2025-12-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Recent seizure events do not qualify as military action:
The M/T Skipper seizure occurred in international waters (not Venezuelan territory)
Merchant tanker seizures do not count as "firing upon Venezuelan state military vessels"
Controversial boat strikes reported by Reuters also occurred in international waters
Actions must occur in, over, or against Venezuelan territory or involve Venezuelan state military vessels to qualify.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ11,036 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,060 | |
| 3 | Ṁ2,000 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,891 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1,560 |
People are also trading
@mods check the @Bayesian wrong action
@SG , Market was resolved initially the correct way by creator @MikhailTal as 100% NO in December 2025
This market concerns December, not January.
All descriptions and references in the market relate to military actions involving military forces, which did not occur in December.
Those events happened only on 3 January 2026.
The creator resolved the market correctly based on the stated criteria.
How is @Bayesian connected to the decision to re-resolve the market against the factual evidence?
Importantly, both correlated markets on Polymarket.com were correctly resolved as NO military action against Venezuela in 2025, which is the same conclusion reached by the creator @MikhailTal
We all understand that @Bayesian may have his own interpretation, influenced by his stake in the market.
However, that does not grant the right to override the creator’s correct resolution, especially when it aligns with Polymarket’s definitions and official resolutions.
Polymarket’s equivalent markets, using comparable defidefinition -were resolved as clear NO.
https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-venezuela-military-engagement-by and https://polymarket.com/event/next-us-x-venezuela-military-engagement-on
@mods why the market was reresolved?
This is about December, not January.
All the description, and references about military actions involved military forces.
Thst happened only on 3 January 2026.
Creator resolved correct way, how @Bayesian is ever connected here to reresolve the market against the factual evidence?
Just doing a second or third round of comments and apols as I can't devote every hr of the day to this. I just want to reiterate one piece of my thinking:
The fact that:
"Covert CIA activity never acknowledged publicly"
was listed as an example does not, in my view, rule out
"Covert CIA activity publicly acknowledged"
as potentially resolving yes. It was an example only. Examples are not mutually exhaustive, necessarily.
The definition was military (versus civil).
Now that said, some of the examples can clearly be interpreted as contradictory. Darn the AI.
I think the fair thing might have been to resolve as 50/50 but I do not think "yes" is right either.
Offering to buy some mana coffees to those who perhaps rightly feel put out.
@MikhailTal Certainly makes much more sense than 0%! Thank you for being willing to admit your mistakes & correct them.
@MikhailTal I've acted as a pot-stirrer on this market while not having a meaningful stake, but in all seriousness, it's very cool to see you talking the community feedback onboard.
And I was surprised that I misread your intent! I keep forgetting that theory of mind is actually difficult. Oh what pains the world could avoid were we all naturally better at calibrating our uncertainties of each other's intentions.
Thank you for adequate and smart NO resolution. This question was an IQ test.. Question is about literally Military action.
Several key points are being misunderstood by many: Under the formal definition, the military and armed forces do not encompass CIA activities.
Also ations attributed to the CIA are not officially acknowledged, confirmed, or publicly claimed by the agency or by U.S. government officials. Neither Venezuela ever confirmed the December strike.
Trump made a brief reference to a strike, but did not mention which explosions and at which specific facilities (there were at least 4 accidents at different plants since August), nor did he identify the method used or the actor responsible for carrying it out.
In international law, what matters is use of force by a state, not whether shooters wear DoD or CIA hats. A CIA drone strike inside another country’s territory is still an armed use of force attributable to the U.S. state, not magically “non‑military” because of the org chart.
Even fucking U.S. national‑security literature treats CIA paramilitary strikes as armed operations, often operationally indistinguishable from special operations forces - the choice of CIA is about deniability, not about them being nonmilitary in effect.
I keep saying this: What matters for our market is whether we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that the CIA did it. There is no doubt. The CIA didn't care about fully hiding what they were doing - which is unusual. If it was covert and we were all "something happened and there are well-substantiated rumours it was CIA" I would be fully supporting a NO, but that's not what happened. It's not rumours. Nobody is saying the drone strike didn't occur.
Venezuela breaks the usual pattern where CIA covert action is supposed to be something where US involvement is not apparent or publicly acknowledged. Historically the White House would "no comment" or "cannot confirm nor deny" even if widely reported and then oversight and legal debates happen largely in classified channels. Now we have a president twice and specifically describing a US strike on A Venezuelan dock that matches the covert operation and him already publicly confirming CIA covert action authority in Venezuela, something rare for ongoing covert campaigns.
And this pattern-break is breaking all our brains because now the US is essentially running a "covert" program that politically overt.
There is no formal forensic confirmation by Caracas of a CIA drone strike, but it is not accurate to imply Venezuela simply treats it as an unrelated accident; there are on‑record statements blaming “the gringos” and political framing of it as U.S. aggression. Venezuelan state media and some officials have denounced U.S. “attacks” and “imperial aggression,” even if they do not give a forensic confirmation of that specific drone strike. You know, they're a bit busy.
As for "Trump made a brief reference to a strike"... it is not honest to portray his comments as some vague, non‑attributive aside. They were widely interpreted - reasonably - as a Presidential admission that the U.S. hit a dock in Venezuela. He narrowed down the facility type and location quite a lot. In practice, U.S. responsibility for the strike was highly visible, even if the CIA issued no on‑the‑record admission.
@CornCasting the use of force, and use of armed forces are not the equal.
Armed forces were not ivolved in December's strike.
The first military action against Venezuelan land occurred in January 2026.
CIA activities are not the military action (read the title)
Thank you for digging deeply or use if AI to find the specifics
@Areal I still need you to confirm then that "yes, the CIA can pull out a tank and attack helicopter and grenade launchers and engage with the Venezuelan military and with multiple casualties both sides and it still would not count even if the US military provided logistics support"
Because like I said in https://manifold.markets/MikhailTal/us-military-action-again-venezuela#a61nib2yirr military‑grade means equipment built to military standards for durability, lethality, or environmental resistance (e.g., MIL‑STD‑810‑type ruggedization), and CIA units regularly use such gear even when it is packaged in civilian‑looking form factors.
So the question continues to be, like I posed in the linked comment:
If the CIA can get into a shootout with Venezeulan military, leave hundreds of Venezeulans dead in their operation after using Mi‑17 helicopters, MQ‑9 Reapers, grenade launchers and armoured vehicles (all of which the CIA has access to) and then when asked if US military action occurred would you be "Ackchyually the statute, 10 U.S. Code § 101(a)(4) explicitly states: 'The term ‘armed forces’ means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard.' so even though you see all those dead decapitated Venezeulans that were blown off by those MQ‑9 Reapers it is not Ackchyually military action"
Please someone firmly in the YES camp just say yes, it still would not count as military action, tanks and all. Because if not then there is a "line" the CIA can cross and then it is military action, what is the line?
Fair question. I think you can and must draw a line.
Here is an unbiased response (not mine)
Legal and Institutional Reality
The CIA is a civilian agency operating under Title 50 authority (covert actions require presidential findings and congressional notification). Its paramilitary elements (Special Activities Center) can conduct kinetic operations that look indistinguishable from military ones—drone strikes, raids, sabotage.
DoD uniformed forces operate under Title 10, with different oversight, rules of engagement, and attribution.
In practice, the U.S. government does treat CIA kinetic actions as distinct from "military action" for legal, political, and deniability reasons. This isn't just "ackchyually"—it's how Congress, the executive, and international law often frame it (e.g., CIA drone programs in Pakistan/Yemen were called "covert actions," not declared military operations).
But in Your Extreme Hypothetical:
If the CIA ran a large-scale ground battle with hundreds killed, using heavy weaponry and helicopters:
It would effectively be a military engagement, even if legally Title 50.
No serious analyst or official would deny it amounted to armed U.S. intervention. The "not military" line would crumble under the scale—plausible deniability fails, escalation risks soar, and it blurs into de facto war.
Historical parallels: CIA's Bay of Pigs (1961) involved air/ground combat but was still framed as covert (and failed deniability). Larger ops (e.g., Vietnam-era Air America or Afghanistan mujahideen support) involved military-like force but weren't called "U.S. military action."
Real-World Context (2025 Venezuela Events)
The actual CIA action in late December 2025 was a single, low-profile drone strike (likely MQ-9 Reaper with Hellfire missiles) on an empty coastal port facility used for alleged drug trafficking. Reliable sources (CNN, NYT, AP, TWZ) confirm:
No casualties.
No ground forces, shootouts, helicopters, armored vehicles, or mass deaths.
It was covert (though Trump alluded to it, and leaks confirmed CIA role).
The massive kinetic operation (airstrikes, special forces raid capturing Maduro) happened January 3, 2026—overtly military (DoD/Delta Force, uniformed forces)—not CIA-led ground combat.
So yes, for the real (limited) CIA strike: it was not classified as "U.S. military action" (Title 10 armed forces). But your exaggerated version? That would cross into undeniable U.S. armed intervention, regardless of who pulled the trigger. The pedantry has limits when bodies pile up
@MikhailTal I appreciate your response an love your points! I guess then we are still stuck at "where is the line." I don't want to pretend I have the best answer to that.
But I would personally argue use of military assets and lack of deniability should both be crucial parts of defining the line and is a consistent interpretation based on reading your market criteria.
Put another way: I would concede entirely and agree this market should resolve NO if someone shows me the drone the CIA used was not something like a military-grade MQ‑9 Reaper which the balance of evidence seems to strongly suggest it was (missile fragments recovered after the strike that are consistent with AGM‑114 Hellfire or AGM‑179 JAGM usage, MQ‑9 Reapers were deployed to Puerto Rico etc). If the drone turns out to be - I dunno - something civilians can buy at Home Depot that was just modified then I would argue it does not count as military action.
And of course if the White House completely denied it happened and it was covered up I would also say it shouldn't count.
To me these 2 being part of "the line" is consistent with the market resolution criteria saying "A US drone fires a missile at a target in Venezuela" which is placed later in the criteria as an example separate from the "Kinetic military activity by US armed forces" part because then for the drone case you can then just focus on the action and not who dun it.
Also "Covert CIA activity never acknowledged publicly" does come with the implication that CIA activity publicly acknowledged can count. How can it count? Well as long as the CIA does something that falls in-line with one of the examples on your market. So if the CIA use a US fighter jets to strike a Venezuelan military base or convoy (and there was no deniability. i.e. publicly acknowledged) then I would be having the exact same argument.
Like seriously, does ANYONE here think the CIA using a US fighter jet would NOT count??? No, don't tell me "the CIA does not use-" that wasn't the question. Answer honestly: would you consider that military action if something weird happens and the CIA bombed Venezuela with a fighter jet?
And as soon as we enter "ok in the extremely unlikely scenario that the CIA uses a US fighter jet to strike a military convoy it should count" we immediately enter the next question of "ok, what if they use weapons they actually use frequently like Mi‑17 helicopters? Ok, if you think that should also count then what about drones? It's right there as an example that should count in the resolution criteria."
if your response to that is "I messed up and didn't want this to count and I still think the spirit of this market did mean I wanted something more substantial - i.e. unambiguously for it to come from a military branch - than the drone strike we got" I would concede. I fully appreciate that this is complicated and real world definitions and their interpretation after writing them down are fuzzy. I think in that case this is the perfect example of a market that can reasonably resolve to 50% as suggested by @bens
@CornCasting good point about fighter jet
Yeah and also torn about whether it is more important to resolve per my intent (which I did) versus what someone not knowing my intent and just reading (which I think I also did, but more debatable).
I'm leaning the mechanics. I wonder if resolving to 25% would have been best.
But also working on a new way to avoid any ambiguity in future markets. Stay tuned!
@MikhailTal Indeed!
Usually market creators in this scenario:
ask mods to re-resolve the market (which they will almost certainly do if you provide a semi-valid reason)
Refund traders who lost mana a certain percentage of their investment as an "apology fee." @crowlsyong has made an easy tool to do this: https://risk.markets/refund
Thanks for your willingness to fix the resolution!
@realDonaldTrump Hey this might not be the right place to ask but since we're at it. If someone made a market, and resolved it in a way that's controversial and isn't answering comments asking for clarification from those who think the market should've resolved otherwise, what does one do?
@theScalper I for one am grateful for my losses being on here and not on Poly. More conducive to learning without being ripped a new asshole (financially).
@theScalper
If the problem is "market not yet resolved", you can ask mods to resolve. You can tag them after asking first the market creator to resolve, and then waiting a few days. Not everyone goes into Manifold everyday.
If the problem is "market not properly resolved", you can also ask mods to unresolve. The creator criteria tends to prevail when there is controversy and both options are somehow acceptable, but there are also cases when it was clearly wrong and they undo the resolution.
@MarySmith VERY relatable. I'm learning that criteria ambiguity doesn't necessarily mean more money. Especially considering that on poly, markets are created by the hosts themselves and not by users like us.
@MikhailTal you resolve No absolutely correct.
The resolution came in alliance with the market description
@Areal I appreciate the support. However anyone here who feels robbed can let me know how much mana they lost versus 50/50 resolution.
@theScalper My dilemma: I had previously commented to clarify the status of the market after the strike. There's an argument to be made that this was premature and nobody should comment until after settlement date when new preponderance of evidence is involved. Then again, in theory that might defer settlement unreasonably (imagine a market on who shot JFK ... just kidding, I think).
I have resolved according to my honest intent that CIA operations not be included at the outset but acknowledge ... again ... the contradiction/ambiguity.