@Admin Is there any recourse if a creator ignores their own resolution criteria? The whole point of having explicit resolution criteria is supposed to keep people from moving the goalposts.

The “justification” for this erroneous resolution focuses on ISW noting a Ukrainian claim rather than the explicit criteria that ISW itself would make a certain assessment.

ISW was careful to characterize the mention of a bridgehead in a single ISW report as a Ukrainian claim. ISW publishes daily reports, and has not used the term “bridgehead” after noting the Ukrainian CLAIM on November 17.

@TrickyDuck I reproduced the whole segment of the ISW assessment below including their definition. Your argument seems to be built only the first paragraph of the ISW assessment:

"US military doctrine defines a bridgehead as “an area on the enemy’s side of the water obstacle that is large enough to accommodate the majority of the crossing force, has adequate terrain to permit defense of the crossing sites, provides security to crossing forces from enemy direct fire, and provides a base for continuing the attack.”[2] 

The doctrinal definition of a bridgehead does not stipulate a certain size for the crossing force, the extent of the secured positions, or the ability to transfer and operate heavy military equipment from those positions."

The necessary size of a bridgehead depends on the operations it is meant to support, and the official Ukrainian acknowledgment of these positions as bridgeheads indicates that the Ukrainian command assesses that these positions are sufficient for continuing ground operations on the east bank."

Please note the last paragraph here: (1) ISW links the bridgehead assessment to the Ukrainian war plan in the area that only Ukraine knows. (2) ISW states that since Ukrainians (who know their military plan) call it the established bridgehead for their ground operations on the left bank, it is one.

Which part is confusing? A foothold is an initial stage of what could be later developed as a bridgehead. Beachhead is a variation of a bridgehead. Bridgehead is a general term that was by AFU officials.

@opylypo The part I find confusing is how you claim ISW calls it a bridgehead when they simply don’t. ISW reports that Ukraine CLAIMS to have a bridgehead, and says, “btw here is a definition of a bridgehead.” ISW is noncommittal. It doesn’t matter if Ukraine assesses that it has a bridgehead; that wasn’t the criteria.

@TrickyDuck it doesn't include "by the way" so there is no contrarian notion in the ISW assessment there as you imply. On the contrary :), if you read the whole piece together, the logic of it goes as follows - here is what Ukrainians assessed, and here is why it is justified. The Ukrainian assessment is agreeable to ISW. It's not just cited but also analyzed and supported by ISW.

@opylypo ISW took great care to refer to the bridgehead claim as a Ukrainian assessment. That’s why I don’t see what specific language you are talking about when you say that ISW itself supports the claim.

@TrickyDuck I didn't refer to the specific language but the logic of the ISW argument in my comment.

@opylypo You don’t refer to specific language because it doesn’t exist, which is my point. You are reading more into this than is actually there. You should have made the resolution criteria be that ISW would “infer” or “suggest” that Ukraine had a bridgehead; then I would have known it was open to such loose interpretation..

@opylypo ISW has characterized the Ukraine military on the left bank as “positions” and “footholds.”

I like the use of air quotes in ISW’s Nov 17 report:

The Ukrainian Marine Corps Command and the Ukrainian General Staff stated on November 17 that Ukrainian marines have secured several “bridgeheads” on the east bank following successful actions and are conducting actions to expand these positions.

After air quoting the Ukrainians, ISW has never used the term bridgehead.

To recap, resolution criteria is “ISW determination that such a beachhead has been established.” Changing the resolution criteria now would cheat people who took the market creator at his word.

@TrickyDuck The quote marks are to signal that it is a term they don't expect their readers to be familiar with, and that they are about to define it, which they then do. The term bridgehead appears seven times.

@chrisjbillington I meant that ISW has not used the word bridgehead after they quoted the Ukrainian claim on Nov 17.

Adding a definition undercuts Ukraine’s claim. ISW is saying, “If true, here’s what it means.” An analogy would be if Chinese scientists claimed to have discovered intelligent life in another solar system; a good reporter would quote the claim, and then define how “intelligent life” is understood. The definition wouldn’t support the Chinese claim, but would rather show the bar that the Chinese need to clear to be right.

The whole point of requiring ISW to characterize the footholds as a “bridgehead” is to avoid long arguments about resolution. ISW has never assessed that the positions on the left bank are a bridgehead. The creator chose that criteria, so that’s how it needs to be resolved.

If ISW assessed on November 17 that a bridgehead had been established, then this market should have ended then. The fact that ISW only quoted Ukrainian claims, and the fact that the market remained open indicated to me that a bridgehead had not been achieved according to the resolution criteria. I bet heavily in the last few days, knowing that ISW was not characterizing the foothold as a bridgehead. People can debate reality on the ground all they like, but the criteria was ISW characterizing the crossing as a bridgehead. Resolution should be NO.

@TrickyDuck Shump suggested a resolution 6 days ago based on the Nov 17 report, and nobody supported that. Now, some people seem to be saying that the Nov 17 ISW report was a smoking gun. WTF?

@TrickyDuck In general, I think you should try to infer things from creator inaction only with great caution. I'd recommend checking whether the creator is otherwise active on the site, pinging them with questions, and/or asking for moderator input. Not all creators check in daily or resolve immediately. General site expectations are that things should resolve within a week or so, but that is not consistently supported (especially if no one is asking about it on the discord channel).

@EvanDaniel Fair enough. The bottom line remains, however, that ISW does not characterize the footholds as bridgeheads.

This market will be resolved as YES based on ISW's assessment from November 17, 2023:

November 17, 2023, 7:15pm ET 

Note: The data cut-off for this product was 1:30pm ET on November 17. ISW will cover subsequent reports in the November 18 Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment.

Ukrainian officials stated that Ukrainian forces have established bridgeheads on the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast and are conducting ground operations aimed at pushing Russian forces out of artillery range of the west (right) bank of the Dnipro River. 

The Ukrainian Marine Corps Command and the Ukrainian General Staff stated on November 17 that Ukrainian marines have secured several “bridgeheads” on the east bank following successful actions and are conducting actions to expand these positions.[1] 

US military doctrine defines a bridgehead as “an area on the enemy’s side of the water obstacle that is large enough to accommodate the majority of the crossing force, has adequate terrain to permit defense of the crossing sites, provides security to crossing forces from enemy direct fire, and provides a base for continuing the attack.”[2] 

The doctrinal definition of a bridgehead does not stipulate a certain size for the crossing force, the extent of the secured positions, or the ability to transfer and operate heavy military equipment from those positions.

The necessary size of a bridgehead depends on the operations it is meant to support, and the official Ukrainian acknowledgment of these positions as bridgeheads indicates that the Ukrainian command assesses that these positions are sufficient for continuing ground operations on the east bank.

As best I can tell, this market requires it to be "established", but not to last for any particular duration. In fact, a bridgehead is usually a short term thing:

Bridgeheads typically exist for only a few days, the invading forces either being thrown back or expanding the bridgehead to create a secure defensive lodgement area, before breaking out into enemy territory

While many things are vague here, I'm not seeing any official statements that this did not happen, and the official statements that it did are cited without caveat and repeatedly. Those official statements post-date the creation of the market, and are in contrast to the background info in the market description about the state of things at market creation. I believe most of the ambiguity here arises from traders being uncertain about both market and military terms.

It seems to me that the bridgehead was established, probably no later than the 17th. I think waiting a bit for confirmation or possible conflicting reports would have been reasonable. I think this market can resolve on that basis, as the bridgehead was established even if the advancing forces are later thrown back.

Resolving Yes on this basis because of the inactive creator who has been pinged twice and not responded.

@EvanDaniel I just did respond. I will prefer to do this myself if you don't mind. Sorry for being late. I will read what ISW says and resolve it asap.

@opylypo OK, thank you! I've unresolved it. Up to you now :)

@opylypo Do you think this can resolve? If you're around, feel free to discuss here or on discord, or go ahead and resolve if you think it is clear one way or the other. There's some relevant discussion below.

@chrisjbillington Hard to say. There are certainly lasting UA positions on the left bank, but since they're under constant artillery fire and airstrikes, I'm not sure they could be considered "secure", which is in the market's description. It feels pretty vague to me.

@AlexandreK The ISW wrote (citing Ukrainian authorities) that the bridgeheads had been established, and reiterated the definition of a bridgehead (aka beachhead). I think the only question is whether this counts as "ISW determination that such a beachhead has been established by AFU" - since they are nonetheless citing Ukrainian authorities, and this could be read as not a truth claim of their own (though if information is in doubt they will often say so - the fact that they cite Ukrainian authorities without caveat I think is suggestive).

I also think this should count, given that the bolded part of the question description includes the statement that "No official confirmation or denial has been issued by either side.", which is suggestive that the ISW reporting on such official confirmation might be the sort of statement the creator was looking for.

The ISW has also shaded in the region in their maps the same as they do for recently-liberated, AFU-controlled territory, which is described as "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives". But that level of hedging is the best you get, there is no further category of "confirmed". That's how they show AFU-controlled territory on their maps.

@AlexandreK

since they're under constant artillery fire and airstrikes, I'm not sure they could be considered "secure"

I think that's not required. From the definition cited below:

provides security to crossing forces from enemy direct fire

Artillery is specifically indirect fire, AIUI. I believe air strikes also do not count as direct fire. There's probably a more precise definition somewhere than that.

@chrisjbillington Let me read what ISW assessed as the latest since this is how the market was said to be resolved and it should have been resolved by now, sorry. Apart from ISW, on-the-ground reports support the YES answer.

1. Ukrainians control the sky around Krynky through EW and unlimited FPV drones. Ukrainian artillery, including mortars, dominates from the right bank.

2. Russians experience heavy personnel losses despite constantly resupplying troops

3. Russian disorganization in the area continues - friendly fire, blowing up on its own minefields, refusal to attack

4. Russians began to build a defense line on the crossing from Kherson into Crimea

5. Ukrainians established two more smaller beachheads closer to Kherson, at Oleshky and Sadover and they now transfer armed vehicles near Krynky

6. Russian supply lines on PS57/E97 are cut.

7. Ukrainians moved heavy air defense to only 2-3km from the river on the right bank and are currently caught on video in training of crossing tanks over Dnipro.

8. Ukrainian command recognized the Krynky bridgehead.

   Unlike other areas, Kherson is the place where Ukrainians moved from positional to maneuver warfare, and under maneuver warfare, Krynky is a successful bridgehead.

   I will be back after I check what ISW assesses.

The ISW cites in their Nov 17th update Ukrainian officials confirming the establishment of bridgeheads.

This is official confirmation that the ISW is citing without caveat, does it count as "ISW determination that such beachhead has been established by AFU"?

Ukrainian officials stated that Ukrainian forces have established bridgeheads on the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast and are conducting ground operations aimed at pushing Russian forces out of artillery range of the west (right) bank of the Dnipro River. The Ukrainian Marine Corps Command and the Ukrainian General Staff stated on November 17 that Ukrainian marines have secured several “bridgeheads” on the east bank following successful actions and are conducting actions to expand these positions.[1] US military doctrine defines a bridgehead as “an area on the enemy’s side of the water obstacle that is large enough to accommodate the majority of the crossing force, has adequate terrain to permit defense of the crossing sites, provides security to crossing forces from enemy direct fire, and provides a base for continuing the attack.”[2] The doctrinal definition of a bridgehead does not stipulate a certain size for the crossing force, the extent of the secured positions, or the ability to transfer and operate heavy military equipment from those positions. The necessary size of a bridgehead depends on the operations it is meant to support, and the official Ukrainian acknowledgment of these positions as bridgeheads indicates that the Ukrainian command assesses that these positions are sufficient for continuing ground operations on the east bank.

In the ISW's interactive map, they label the area as "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives". There is no "assessed Ukrainian counteroffensives" category. "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives" is as much as you get until it goes back to being regular old unhighlighted Ukraine after a while. The "Reported Ukrainian Territorial Gains in the Past 24 Hours" category is a subset of "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives".

@chrisjbillington Also, the ISW have reiterated in pretty much every report that the positions in Krynky (where the bridgehead is) are still there.

@Shump Indeed:

Nov 22nd:

Ukrainian forces maintain positions in east (left) bank Kherson Oblast and reportedly attacked in the area on November 22. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces maintain positions in left bank Kherson Oblast.[89] Russian milbloggers widely acknowledged the continued Ukrainian presence in Krynky (30km northeast of Kherson City and 2km from the Dnipro River).[90]