Is the massive terror attack at the Moscow concert hall related to Ukraine?
resolved Apr 22

If, within one month, credible reporting emerges from Western sources claiming that the terrorist attack at the Moscow concert hall is related to Ukraine, this market resolves YES. If there is no such news in one month, resolves NO. I'll have a generous interpretation of "related to Ukraine".

Related to Ukraine means:

  • Perpetrated by Ukrainian nationals, or agents of Ukraine in any way.

  • Financed by the Ukrainian government or pro-Ukraine organizations.

  • Carried out by people or an organization that is explicitly pro-Ukraine or anti-War in Russia.

  • Motivated by the Ukraine War, or an act of political protest either against it or for it.

Get แน€600 play money

๐Ÿ… Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:

I have a question. Let politics be a side.

Related market:

bought แน€150 NO

Putin false flag way more likely.

@Lorelai @ArmandodiMatteo @mint The criteria do not make it clear whatsoever how this would be resolved.

bought แน€100 NO

@HarrisonNathan the whole question is dumb, this is literally the least likely option. Ukraine doesn't attack civilians like this.

@HarrisonNathan Let's take this false flag scenario as an example. If Putin blames Ukraine, and credible Western sources report this without doubting it is true, resolves YES. If credible Western sources cast doubt on Putin's claim (such as by providing evidence to the contrary), which is much much more likely IMO, would not resolve YES. After my previous comment, what do you think still needs to be clarified?

@mint why would any credible western source repeat something Putin says without doubting it? That would make the source not credible. Man's a lie machine.

@Lorelai Exactly! I am just laying out all the possibilities here. Not saying they are likely at all.

@mint Your criteria included "Motivated by the Ukraine War ... either against it or for it." Sounds like you are striking that last bit? So if it was a false flag by Putin, that would be motivated by the Ukraine war (for it) but resolve 'no.'

@HarrisonNathan As I explained in my comment one hour ago, that list of criteria only applies to reporting by credible Western sources. Not any random person or group.

@HarrisonNathan which is way more likely tbh, remember the 1999 apartment bombings which triggered the second Chechen war and facilitated Putin's rise to power? He was baptised in the blood of his own civilians


Ukraine doesn't attack civilians like this.

Russia does not; I believe that because of a few reasons, including:

  1. In Crimea in 2014, when Russia assumed control, no (or less than ten) people were hurt.

  2. Russia has no adversary nations listed; song used for Ukraine's national anthem marks Russians as adversaries.

  3. Videos by Ukrainian soldiers request violence more than by Russian ones.

I've found another political market-poll, which may be a key to finding why viewpoints go so different:

@AnT are you insane, poorly informed, a russian troll, or just plain evil? Russia has tortured, raped, massacred Ukrainian civilians en masse. You are engaging in genocide denial.


  1. "assumed control" = invaded illegally and by surprise a small peninsula by land from inside (Sevastopol) in a US-UK-RF demilitarized country (Budapest memorandum) while a democratic transition was happening in the capital (former president Yanukovych fled to Russia) hundreds of kilometers from there.

  2. Watch and read some speeches by Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov, Simonian, Solovev and you'll find plenty. Search for Julia Davis News on YouTube.

  3. Again, there are lots of available videos and private phone calls predating Ukrainian counter attacks where Russians display violence and imperialist discourse. Besides, ever heard of Chechnya, Girkin gloating about shooting down yet another military plane then retracting that claim because it was MH17, bombings of hospitals and civilians in Syria still going on to this day, the apartment bombings of 1999 and the Ryazan sugar, the assassinations of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko ...?

@traders I would like to clarify the resolution criteria early, to avoid any conflicts later on when there is more traders. The description states:

If ... credible reporting emerges from Western sources claiming that the terrorist attack at the Moscow concert hall is related to Ukraine ...

This means that if whatever person or group that takes credit for this attack says "Oh yeah, this was totally about justice for Ukraine, not just that we wanted to cause chaos and kill a ton of people" that alone that won't be enough for the market to resolve YES. It needs to be the consensus of credible, Western sources that any of the "Related to Ukraine" criteria's I listed are met. If these sources provide evidence that Ukraine may not be the true motivation behind the attack, and it's just a cover, that would not count for YES.

That being said, if western news simply reports that the perpetrators are claiming Ukraine for their motivation, and there aren't any reasons to doubt it being true (after all, they aren't mind readers), that would be sufficient to resolve YES. I hate having to be subjective in my markets, so I won't be in the business of judging whether a terrorists groups motivations are credible unless evidence is presented that it isn't.

I tried to make this as clear as possible. If anyone has any questions, please ask and i'll clarify further.

bought แน€10 YES

@mint What if it turns out that the Ukrainian secret service or somesuch opportunistically provided aid to IS terrorists? Even something like looking the other way while the perpetrators smuggled weapons through Ukraine. Or perhaps knowing that the terrorists getaway plan includes an escape over the Ukrainian border, and also looking the other way?

@VitorBosshard if it's confirmed the Ukrainian secret service (or actually any Ukranian organization, doesn't have to be governmental) provided aid, that would count as being related to Ukraine. If Ukraine knew they were going to escape to Ukraine but looked the other way I would also count that as YES but I think it would be really hard to prove.

If they simply tried to escape to Ukraine but there is no evidence any Ukranian organization was there to provide them aid, comfort, or escape, it wouldn't be enough to resolve YES.

bought แน€10 YES

Betting YES. Not because I think that Ukraine is directly involved but because whoever perpetrated the attacks might mention Ukraine as a justification.

2 traders bought แน€105 YES
bought แน€100 YES

@littlebubulle yeah, my best guess is "Russian false flag to be used as a pretext to further escalate hostilities against Ukraine"

@ArmandodiMatteo That can also happen, but if it's later judged to be that, could your profits be reversed if you hold until the incorrect 'yes' resolution?

@HarrisonNathan huh, if I read the description correctly the scenario I mention would correctly resolve Yes. @mint can you confirm?

There's a high chance whoever did it is against the war by virtue of being against the Russian government in general, even if that wasn't a primary motivation.

@HarrisonNathan Agreed. Just being against the government in general won't be enough to resolve this as YES. They would have to be explicitly pro-Ukraine or anti-Ukraine War.

More related questions