Was the Kremlin in on it?

<-------- EDIT 12-08-23 -------->

From now on I will probably add comment clarifications to the description even though I believe that clarification is primarily what comments are for, people seem to not like it.

If there is material credible evidence (according to my judgement) that something other than a straightforward rebellion / revolt / insurrection / coup / mutiny / uprising / your favorite adjective here took place, I'll resolve it "Yes".

The spirit of the question is asking if things were as they seemed, or if it was production put on for the benefit of the viewers, and the major outcomes were pre-determined or at least agreed upon. For instance, if the agreement between Lukashenko and Prigozhin was in place ahead of time and there was never any intention for troops to enter Moscow, and this becomes known in some way I would resolve the market "Yes", notably this does not require any involvement from the Russian military. I would actually claim that is justifiable for this market to be trading substantially higher, since there is no need to figure out why the Russian armed forces would be okay with losing seven aircraft in the course of acting out some sort of farcical cover for troop repositioning or whatever.

As far as resolution, for now I feel comfortable placing the burden of proof on the hoax side, "insurrection" seems like a pretty good null hypothesis. If there is some level of low credibility evidence for it being a hoax, I will change my default resolution to N/A.

Also, I might extend this market, I would guess that I would almost always do this rather than resolve the market N/A. Loans mean that the opportunity cost of leaving it open is fairly low, and I think the category of markets with what I'll call murky epistemics are useful as a reference for changes in sentiment. See for example, the "Did COVID-19 come from a laboratory?" market.

Status: So far, there seems to be no evidence of a hoax, the current resolution date is still in place.