This market will resolve YES if and when Wikipedia's English page on the Russo-Ukrainian War (or the nearest equivalent if that page no longer exists) lists in its infobox "Result: Ukrainian victory", and I am satisfied that this is not part of an edit war.
It will also resolve YES if the result describes the victor as some coalition of which Ukraine is a part, or describes the outcome in terms of the defeated side being Russia or some coalition of which Russia is a part.
Any other "result" after the war is no longer described by Wikipedia as "ongoing" will cause the market to resolve NO, including hedged statements like "Partial Ukrainian victory" or "Ukrainian victory with territorial losses".
Resolution only depends on the first, non-dotpoint statement in the "result" section of the infobox. If hedging/concessions follow the intitial statement as dotpoints, or if they appear in the body of the article, this is not relevant to resolution. If the "result" comprises only dotpoints, the market will resolve NO.
The closing date for this market will be extended as needed until the market can resolve.
Related questions
I think this market is more about Wikipedia policy than geopolitical outcomes.
For me, winning simply means not being absorbed as a country by Russia. Their resistance so far constitutes an impressive win. In parallel though, I also believe they will manage to break the Russian forces to the point that they withdraw, possibly with regime change. Intrigued to see how Wikipedia will determine this as I can see a few scenarios over time, including a military of some sort e.g. mainatining a hold on Crimea/stakemate followed by collapse of Russian government (I.e. an indirect win), maybe over a longer time frame.
The Korean War is marked as "inconclusive", which would resolve as NO. This suggests that a frozen conflict would resolve as NO.
This is solely a market about the way Wikipedia frames the result of military conflict and has little to no bearing on the actual facts of the matter on the ground, regardless if one is pro Ukraine or pro Russia.
@CosmoForbes Surely the actual facts of the matter on the ground will have some bearing on the way Wikipedia frames the result of the military conflict?
@JoshuaWilkes For the record, if there is a gross violation of expectations about Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia becoming the state encyclopedia of the Russian Federation, I will find the next best thing that is in the spirit of the market as currently written and use that instead. The spirit of this market is about the war, not about Wikipedia, Wikipedia is just how I have operationalized it.
I will try to abide by the criteria to the greatest extent that makes sense, but if there is a gross conflict between the letter and the spirit of the resolution criteria, I will do the next best thing after discussion with market participants, possibly resolving N/A if there is no good solution.
These odds are insane. Especially considering conditions for a NO resolution include stuff like "Partial Ukrainian victory" and "Ukrainian victory with territorial losses".
Even if the conflict gets a resolution within the next few years, the resolution is extremely unlikely to be a clear victory from either side, certainly not to the extent that the Wikipedia article would have that stated. Crimea going back to Ukraine seems incredibly unlikely - 10% or less. Maybe the Russian side will be declared victorious because they captured SOME of the Ukrainian territory, but Ukraine getting declared victorious seems so far removed from reality.
Bold yes. The other side (Russia) is headed for complete collapse in coming months.
@AlexandreK there many "tells", my favorite are:
1. complete "hibernation" in time of Prigozhin's coup - the system can't react rationally in crisis (also: check out today's reaction on attack on "Moscow city")
2. kremlin has no allies, only a couple trade partners, so no one outside is particularly interested in prevention of such collapse
3. some turbulence with recent military laws passing in "duma" (army against president administration)
4. there's presidential election in 2024, but also there's high chance of new wave of mobilization - that is a recipe for civil unrest and high turbulence
5. each day there are physically less and less people inside, who are satisfied with the "status quo" and there is no way to course-correct without major crisis => collapse
With the caveat that any territorial concessions mean it's a no, I bet no.
No way they're getting Crimea back. They'd be lucky at this point to get all their 2021 land back.
If they end up in a permanent korea-style stalemate without a peace treaty, does this resolve no?
@JonathanRay An excellent corner-case that I think demonstrates the benefit of outsourcing resolution to Wikipedia. For the Korean war, Wikipedia lists it as de jure ongoing and defacto ended, with "result: inconclusive". So because it lists a result, that'd be a NO.
