I assume this will be one of those markets which leaves many people unhappy, no matter how I resolve. I’ll give reasons for the resolution below; but I’d like to stress two things up front. First, I tried to make it as clear as possible that the resolution will have to be somewhat subjective, encouraged participants to ask about particular cases, and did my best to reply quickly to the questions. Second, please consider that, whatever your position is, there’s a comparable number of people disagreeing with you in this particular market. Don’t think everyone whose opinion differs from yours is deluded or acts in bad faith.

Now, for the resolution. According to my personal definition of “significant,” the front line did not change significantly in 2024. Let me talk about the three options that seemed to me to be the most promising candidates for significance:

• Overall Russian gains: Russia did steadily gain territory in the East in the course of 2024. Different sources put them at about 3-4 thousand square kilometers. While it’s certainly not nothing, it’s a far cry from the two benchmarks I mentioned in the discussions in different contexts – the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive (about 12,000 km²) or a third of a region.

• Ukraine offensive in the Kursk Region: This was certainly a striking development. However, the pure area taken was a bit more than 1,000 km², and thus not significant according to the criteria above. And I think no-one claimed Ukraine had captured really important cities.

• Russian capture of individual towns: As far as I can tell, the higher-profile candidates like Pokrovsk and Toretsk have not been fully captured. But I don’t think they would have sufficed anyway: my examples of significant cities from the description were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which are on a different scale, and I said in the comments that the closest city I’d consider to fit the bill is Kramatorsk.

Some participants asked whether particular developments count, like the Kursk incursion as such. They don’t, and I think there might be a misreading of the question here. The market was not about significant developments; it was specifically and explicitly about significant changes in the front line.

I hope that, even if you don’t agree with my resolution, you can at least see where I’m coming from. My particular thanks go out to @AlexandreK for the long and thoughtful comments – sorry they weren’t enough to change my mind in the end, but I honestly appreciated them and benefited from them.

@PS Resolves as NO. Russia captured nothing of significance, and the amount of new territory gained falls short of 4,000 km². The total gained territory amounts to 4,168 square kilometers, but that includes roughly 483 square kilometers of Russian territory recaptured in Kursk.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-31-2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-2-2025

@PS does the advance near Pokrovsk not count? and what are we comparing to? The beginning?

@HristoSpirov As the title is "in 2024," we are comparing to the start of the year.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread the question at first.

I think the advances near Pokrovsk do not qualify because they do not constitute significant territorial gains, nor have captured major cities/objects. If Pokrovsk itself is captured: I'm not sure, I'll have to read up on the situation and consider whether it would be a major event. Any arguments/links are appreciated.

@PS 1586 kilometers square does not count as significant? if not what amount of land would classify as a "significant territorial gain"

@HristoSpirov I don't have a hard number, unfortunately, In the discussions below, one (extreme) example was that the Kharkiv counteroffensive brought about 12,000 km² to Ukraine. And I did say that capturing 1/3 of a region seems like a major territorial gain.

Could you point me to a good source for changes within 2024 for this region specifically?

@PS deepstate maps is what I am currently using, all you have to do is click on the region you are looking at and it will tell you the amount of occupied land.

@HristoSpirov Donetsk oblast is roughly 26 000 square kilometers. 1500 square kilometers is not even close to 1/3 of the region.

At the beginning of the year, Russia had occupied 10.69% of Ukraine after the invasion. It's now 11.20%. I think it's very hard to make a case for a significant change when considering area alone.

Pokrovsk falling could perhaps be significant enough, given it's status as a logistical hub. Other than that, it's fairly unimpressive to take Ukraines 69th biggest city after a full year of fighting...

@HristoSpirov Sorry for the late reply. I'm afraid I didn't quite get what the individual numbers refer to - they don't seem to be about particular regions, and I also can't find a time setting (occupied/liberated compared to when?). If you can show me the numbers, I'd be grateful.

@PS @mods

Should resolve YES.

Will the territory controlled by Ukraine/Russia change significantly at any time before January 1, 2025? This would include major territorial gains or capture of important cities/objects.

Ukraine launched a surprise incursion into Russia's Kursk region on August 6, 2024

• capturing over 1,250 square kilometers of territory

• capturing 92 settlements

• This marks the most significant cross-border attack on Russian territory since World War II

• Russia deployed 50,000 soldiers to take back control of Kursk

• North Korea deployed 10,000 soldiers to help Russia take back Kursk

Something that warrants this kind of troop relocation can't be dismissed as insignificant.

@GazDownright there's no point pinging mods at the same time when you haven't given the creator a chance to reply.

also, there's a whole comment thread below where the creator explains specifically why they do not feel the august 6th incursion does not count. you'll have to start there before anything else.

@Ziddletwix It's been over 3 months since the creator replied, and in hindsight, it should have been resolved then.

@GazDownright

You've quoted the specific criteria, and I don't think they have been met. Point 2-5 are not about major territorial gains or important cities/objects at all. You could argue that 1,250km² are significant, of course, and it's subjective to a degree, as is stated in the description. However, there have been discussions of this in the comments; my current thinking is that this is not the case.

You're welcome to take this to the mods, of course.

@GazDownright it's been 3 months since the discussion, not 3 months since they've replied to specific questions. (they replied to my own question on another market a week or two ago! i imagine they'd reply in a couple of weeks here if asked as well).

in any case, when the market description says "The resolution will be subjective to a degree, feel free to ask about any particular cases", and the creator discusses in detail why they do not feel something is sufficient to resolve the market, I would give a near ~0% chance that the mods step in to overrule the creator's ruling, especially if you haven't actually debated/engaged any of their specific points.

@PS In my opinion, you are being insincere. You mention "major territorial gains OR important objects/cities."

Capturing the Kursk region warranted the relocation of 60,000 troops on the Russian side. (Edit: It was also a major embarrassment for Kreml and a significant morale booster for Ukraine.)

This makes it an important object by definition.

As per your description, for this not to resolve YES, you must be willing to describe the relocation of 50k Russians and 10k North Koreans as insignificant.

Are you prepared to describe Kursk as unimportant knowing of this troop movement?

(I tagged the mods because I assumed you had left the site. You can disregard that.)

Note: I just sold my YES position at a loss, as I don't want it misconstrued as bias. This is not about mana. It's about the integrity of facts and answers to important questions, like this market.

@GazDownright Just so that I understand what you mean: Do you think the "major territorial gains" part or the "important objects/cities" part has been triggered?

@PS I think the problem and reason this market has not been resolved yet is a hyper-focus on semantics—not seeing the forest for the trees.

Will the front line in Ukraine change significantly? Will the territory controlled by Ukraine/Russia change significantly?

The answer to this is YES. Ukraine made an incursion into Russia that warranted a significant troops relocation.

If you want to get bogged down in semantics:

As an object, the Kursk region is strategically important—especially symbolically; otherwise, 50,000 Russians and 10,000 North Koreans wouldn't have been redeployed there.

@GazDownright I understand that we have different interpretations. That's precisely why I get bogged down in semantics, as you put it - the only other option I can imagine is shouting "Yes it is significant!" - "No it isn't!!" - "Is too!!!" - "Is not!!!!"

I agree the Ukrainian incursion in Kursk is important, and it has strategic implications. If the question was just "Will there be significant developments in the war?", I might answer "Yes". However, the question was about changes to the front line, and I set down (relatively) specific criteria. I don't think the Kursk region can be described as an object, and, more importantly, <5% of it were captured.

As for the troop movements - I think there are a lot of troop movements in different places; I don't think moving troops to a theater of war means there has been a significant change. Russia moved hundreds of thousands of troops before the war started, without any change in the front line.

It's a defacto significant change in the front line. It's not about interpretation, it's about hiding behind semantics.

@GazDownright I'm afraid that's exactly what I meant with "Is too!" - "Is not!" line of argument.

I'm happy for you to take this to the mods or any other arbiters if you want.

@PS Your argument is that forcing the enemy to deploy 60k at an hitherto unthinkable location is of little or no significance.

Unfortunately this turns your market into being about you and not what is actually going on.

The only arbiter we need is the Russian army command's decision to act on the Ukrainian incursion.

@GazDownright This might be a good argument for a certain area being important. I don't think it has any bearing on whether a front has moved.

However, it seems that you don't think there can be any real disagreement on the issue, presumably meaning I (and anyone else holding a differing opinion) is either insincere or completely irrational. I don't think there is much sense in a discussion if that's the case.

Please forgive (or otherwise simply delete) the shameless self-promotion:
https://manifold.markets/AlexandreK/will-russian-forces-take-toretsk-be

@ps Would the fall of Pokrovsk count as a significant change? FWIW, I think it's fair to say it counts as the capture of an important city / logistics hub.