Trying to predict the longer-term outcome of the conflict using 2030 as a cut off date sufficiently in the future hopefully.
There is a good chance that Russia and Ukraine disagree about the border. For example, Ukraine has not accepted the Crimea annexion in 2014. Instead defacto control is sufficient for resolution but it requires 6 months of cease-fire (if not peace).
The current goal of Ukraine is Pre-2014 border, i.e. Crimea is part of Ukraine again. The current goal of Russia is that Ukraine gives more territory to Russia than Crimea, e.g. Luhansk and Donetsk.
More fineprint from comment discussion:
If Ukraine controls only a minor part of Crimea, I'd still resolve as "Pre-2022".
If Ukraine-controlled landmass is roughly the same as "Pre-2022" then I would resolve it as such, even if the landmass is not all Crimea.
If Crimea becomes an independent state, it will hopefully clearly pick a side and we can resolve it as part of Russia or Ukraine
Update 2025-02-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): State Existence Clarification:
Rump (Puppet) States: A state that exists only nominally (for example, a rump state) will be treated as not continuing to exist. The creator's example is that Chechnya does not exist, implying that if a state like Ukraine is reduced to a puppet or nominal rump state, it will be resolved as no longer existing.
Recognized Independent States: A state with full, recognized independence is treated as having continued existence, as illustrated by the example that Belarus exists.
This clarification will guide future judgments regarding disputed or diminished state entities in the context of the market.
1,000GIven what is happening right now I think that the most likely scenario is one where the current war ends in a few months, the peace deal is catastrophic to Ukraine (no serious security guarantees, Russia keeps the territories it currently holds), Russia rebuilds its' capabilities (while Ukraine gets some help from Europe, but not much of anything from USA) and near the end of Trump's term Russia attacks again and this time Ukraine is too demoralized and collapses. Maybe there is a nominally independent rump state, but I think that this would count as Ukraine no longer existing (as it would be at most a nominally independent puppet state).
Maybe there is a nominally independent rump state, but I think that this would count as Ukraine no longer existing
@marktwse Could you comment on this? My definition of Ukraine no longer existing would be that there is no state called Ukraine. (E.g. being annexed by Russia or splitting into two states with different names). Being effectively a puppet state I would consider as Ukraine exists.
@Irigi I think that Ukraine being a rump puppet states does fit with the spirit of ''Ukraine no longer exists'', as Russia sees Ukraine as something more akin to a regional identity within larger All-Rusian nation - it's the idea called triune nationalism. If Russia conquers Ukraine then they would probably seek to implement this idea by getting rid of separate Ukrainian identity.
@IdkIdc I understand and I agree with the spirit of what you are saying - that being a puppet state would effectively mean Ukraine lost everything for which it fought. But resolution criteria in prediction markets should be formulated precisely, that's why I lean towards reading the sentence literaly here.
My prediction is that Manifold users will underestimate the odds of Russia holding more territory in Eastern Ukraine.
This is because West cares more about things surrounding Eastern Ukraine, such as public opinion and information warfare, successfully driving Russia out of Kyiv and central Ukraine, and other factors, than territory control in Eastern Ukraine. This limits the usefulness of Eastern Ukraine as a Schelling point for countries around the world to assess how Western power has changed over the decades as corruption and stagnation sets in governments everywhere (for example, economic strength and stability are well-known to be great indicators of how US-China affairs are going, much better than other factors like naval presence).
“'Those discussions [about peace talks] are starting... '
Such a negotiation would likely mean giving up parts of Ukraine to Russia...
... aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation.
In Politico, December 27 [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211]
Some arguments for "No cease-fire"?
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ramping-up-war-production/32658857.html
I made a market that uses the new unlinked multiple choice markets to get a more granular view of the possible borders: https://manifold.markets/Shump/after-the-war-in-ukraine-ends-which
Also, my policy is to never bet on long-term markets, but this market (not the linked one) is terribly wrongly priced. I really hope it's as positive as this market shows, but I think bettors are high on copium.
@Daniel_MC no cease fire doesn't mean both sides still have fully operational armies, it can turn into guerilla warfare too
@Daniel_MC it's in America's interest for Ukraine to win and not to just see Ukraine crumble and Russia knocking on Europe's door.
@SebastianLatting Unless the US is pivoting to Asia and starts caring less about Europe. But it’s hard to estimate the timescale for that
What is clear is that the war in Ukraine is no longer a confrontation between two countries, Russia is trying to break the post-World War II order, so Russia is against the whole freedom world, whether it is the economic strength of the country, or the military strength, Russia can not compete with the freedom world，So the war went on and Russia only recognized ‘’Pre-2014: Crimea controlled by Ukraine‘’，Finally had no choice but to withdraw.But Russia is a sovereign state,so it will keep the all the current territory.
>Russia can not compete with the freedom world
This is if the free world would go all in into war economics, which will most likely not happen..