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
This is truly stunning: https://twitter.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1726622797118804153/video/1
Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations for 10 years until June this year, saying:
"Even if we give everything we need to give to Ukraine it still won't lead to success... Therefore the U.S. needs to have some very direct conversations with Ukraine and talk about reducing their emphasis on liberating land, increasingly put their emphasis on holding onto what they've got... The idea that 1 or 2 or 3 more years of this is going to result in success, I simply don't see it... Anytime in life there's a big gap between what you're trying to do and your ability to do it, you either need to increase your means or lower your goals: here the only realistic option is to lower our goals."
In other words, the war is not only lost, it's unwinnable.
First and foremost, what an immense waste of human life. Not only was this one of the most easily preventable wars of all times, but the West actively worked to prevent any peace deals early on in the war like the one tentatively reached in Istanbul just 1 month or so into the war, convincing Ukraine they'd be better off fighting. 100s of thousands of deaths later and here we are.... Will there be any reckoning? Sadly, I'm pretty sure there won't, just a depressing disaster all around.
@Akzzz123 a lot of denial of Ukrainian agency by this Bush era diplomat. Neither pro-Biden nor pro-Ukraine. I wouldn't give a lot of credit to his discourse in these partisan times. Wars can last a long time, especially such an important one. The USSR and Russia did lose some wars.
@RatUziCat Current US foreign policy is run by a mix of Bush-era neocons and Obama-era liberal imperialists. There's not much difference between the two. You don't get to become the president of CFR unless you are close to the ruling establishment.
MSNBC doesn't run much that's not DNC-approved.
This is increasing evidence that ending support for Ukraine is not just a Republican Party viewpoint but is rather becoming a bipartisan viewpoint.
@Akzzz123 Until Wikipedia no longer says "status: ongoing" in the infobox and replaces it with something about it being a frozen conflict, which is what it has done for other frozen conflicts previously.
@BTE If you're asking about the market, it will likely resolve NO in that case. As discussed downthread, with other wars that never definitively ended, the "status" on Wikipedia has updated to something other than "ongoing". Once that happens for this war, if it doesn't say "outcome: Ukrainian victory", then this market will resolve NO.
@chrisjbillington I get it. I like the resolution criteria. I was just thinking outload anxiously...
Almost impossible. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/strong-military
@AnT Russia > U.S. is nonsense. America just doesn’t want to admit how much money and effort they spend on their military.
@ShadowyZephyr if U.S. being listed at 1st place would've been evidence of it being stronger, then it not being there is evidence of it being weaker, according to law of conservation of expected evidence.
[... T]he decision tree for condemning accused witches: If the witch had led an evil and improper life, she was guilty; if she had led a good and proper life, this too was a proof, for witches dissemble and try to appear especially virtuous. After the woman was put in prison: if she was afraid, this proved her guilt; if she was not afraid, this proved her guilt, for witches characteristically pretend innocence and wear a bold front. Or on hearing of a denunciation of witchcraft against her, she might seek flight or remain; if she ran, that proved her guilt; if she remained, the devil had detained her so she could not get away.
@AnT here is a ranking with US as #1:
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
I have to question the sanity of anyone who would authentically claim Russia is #1. The ability of the US to project considerable power globally is a qualitative distinction it has compared to any other country. I'm guessing something like the boneyard of mouldering obsolete tanks Russia has in its inventory boosts its ranking.
I'm guessing something like the boneyard of mouldering obsolete tanks Russia has in its inventory boosts its ranking
This can be true but new weapons (including AI enemy-vehicles-recognizing ones) are constantly developed to replace old ones.
@ShadowyZephyr are you claiming misapplication of the rule to be about its scope, about the fact not translating into evidence about market question or something other?
@AnT I'm Russian, and the fact that people still think that Russian military is even in the top ten strongest after the complete clusterfuck of the current war is mind boggling for me.