If one or more of the US, Ukraine, or European Union countries were responsible for the recent Nord Stream attack, this question resolves YES.
If Russia or Belarus was responsible, this question resolves NO.
If a different nation or a non-state actor was responsible, and in my estimation their motives were aligned with one of the two sides, this question will resolve accordingly.
If there is no consensus by market close, this question will resolve N/A.
The intent of this market is to be similar to https://manifold.markets/NicholasCharette73b6/which-country-is-primarily-responsi, while avoiding the pitfalls of multiple choice markets by narrowing down the question to the side of the conflict responsible.
Related questions
@TANSTAAFL I actually agree with you that it would be better to extend the date and wait for more evidence or stronger consensus. That said, I feel bound by the initial description, which specified a resolution as of a specific date.
Well, technically not. Rereading the description, I see it only says that it will close N/A if there is no consensus by market close. Nevertheless, given the context, it's pretty clear that leaving it for longer wouldn't be in the spirit of the original description.
So while I'm not happy about it, I feel the honorable thing to do would be to resolve it as well as is possible currently, i.e. to YES.
I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.
@zzq I think it should be resolved now. "If there is no consensus by market close, this question will resolve N/A" very heavily implies that the close date is fixed and will not be pushed back. And this could well have influenced people's trading: P(eventual consensus says it's the West) =/= P(eventual consensus says it's the West | consensus is reached by Oct 1)
(I do not have an opinion on what to resolve it to - I haven't followed this story closely enough to know if there's a consensus)
Nothing is definitive, and maybe never will be. But at least among the people I've recently discussed the topic with it seems to be pretty settled, after the Washington Post story—before that it was up in the air, but since then it's not really been argued about. But others may have different experiences, and my aim in leaving it unresolved for a few days is to have the opportunity to hear from others. Maybe I'm in a bubble and others will correct me.
A secondary influence is that this market is at 92%. This isn't a self-resolving market, and I wouldn't want it to be one—if this market was obviously wrong, I'd resolve it in the obviously correct way. But as things stand, market participants have as a whole expressed a pretty strong belief in which way this will turn out. That's not the same thing as a consensus, but it's in the same category of thing.
Again, that's secondary—if enough people credibly say that in their experience people are still arguing about it and there isn't a consensus, then I'll take that seriously (and resolve N/A.)
@zzq Note that if (as a silly example) 100% of people believed that it was 55% likely that the West was responsible, that would obviously be a consensus (because of the 100%) and there might accordingly be no arguing going on anywhere, but I also wouldn't call that a consensus that the West was responsible - rather it's a consensus that the West being responsible is slightly more likely than not. So I'm curious in your circles that are not arguing about this, what probabilities do you think they hold?
The core of the case for YES is this: Earlier this year it was a topic of conversation that people would have lively and spirited debates over. Now it isn't. Part of that is the passage of time, of course, with newer things to talk about. But part of it is, it seems to me, that there has become a particular story that has been accepted, and now it's not worth arguing about anymore. This seems to have happened in something like a phase-change around June, which is evidence in favor of the crystallizing-consensus explanation over a passage-of-time explanation, which one would expect to be more continuous.
In response to your specific scenario, I'd point out that of course there exist people who don't particularly care about the topic and thus don't know much about it, and thus don't have a strong opinion one way or another—in fact almost everyone in the world is like that. Consensus must mean among people who have an actual opinion, who consider themselves informed on the matter and are willing to take a stance about the case. Yes, if everyone had thought about it deeply and reached an estimate of 55% that would be one thing; but if most people didn't think about it at all, maybe leaning one way some small amount (say 55%), but among those who actually cared about it most everyone estimated 90%, I'd call that consensus even if that later group is small.
That said, all my evidence up until this point is just vibes and impressions. It would be nice to have something more quantitative, perhaps a poll of some sort. Or let's put it this way, given that all we need to prove for a N/A resolution is that there isn't a consensus: if some number of credible people are willing to go on the record in this thread arguing a theory that states that a non-western aligned party was responsible, then that disproves the existence of consensus.
Anyone who has such theories: post them here, with a short explanation of what you believe and what you think the evidence is, and create (and link to) a market in which people can bet on the correctness of your theory (or some proxy for it.)
If this thread collects a number of such examples it will be clear there is no consensus. Even a handful of reasoned arguments for other theories would be enough. If we can't get anyone to take a solid stance for any opposing theory, that would, on the other hand, be evidence of consensus for YES.
Is this satisfactory? I believe this cuts to the heart of the matter. The thing that would make me confident in consensus is if indeed no one is willing to commit to any opposing theory, and the thing that would make me confident in lack-of-consensus is if plenty of people showed up with confidence in other theories. Admittedly there is a gray space with subjectivity in between: e.g. if the only reply is a single drive-by comment saying "I think Russia did it, lol". There does need to be some weighting by effort here, I think. Still, I think this is an experiment that is worth doing.
Feel free to invite others who you know have an opinion on the matter to engage in this way, or in any equivalent way that also demonstrates a similar stance, ideally with some form of skin in the game, be it mana or reputation staked on the outcome.
@zzq I don't personally have a firm opinion on it, at least not one that I would throw my weight behind in the way that you are asking. Hence, already I demonstrate a lack of internal consensus. (!)
More seriously, there are three points I would make about the consensus you describe.
1) the market here doesn't really show a phase shift in response to the June article in the Washington Post, so it probably isn't what motivated people to be this up.
2) taking a look at Twitter, the prevailing theory among people who are strongly pro-Ukraine is that Russia was responsible.
BUT
3) the prevailing view amongst people who are pro-Russia (and there is FAR more traffic for this if you just search Nordstream) is that the US was responsible, not Ukraine
I just don't see where the consensus is, except perhaps that is is absent from my circle and apparent in yours, but even then I would argue that's more persuasive that there isn't one overall.
After pondering it for a bit, I've decided that this is too unclear to resolve fairly. People can (and do) have different opinions as to what "consensus" even means, and I can't really find a way to decisively choose one of them in a way that seems fair.
My current plan is to give up and cancel this market, resolving it N/A, because it was a bad idea in the first place to have an end date with the criteria this loosely defined. If anyone has any objections to this, please speak up now.
@zzq It looks like most of the objections are on theory/principal, not the actual outcome. I would resolve YES and treat it as a lesson-learned.
New leads in Nord Stream investigation: several Ukrainians in the spotlight - https://nos.nl/l/2491917
Can someone present me with a compelling explanation for why Russia or a Russia-aligned entity would WANT to destroy the pipeline?
As I see it, the main geopolitical consequence here is that it’s no longer possible for Germany to unilaterally withdraw from the “arm and fund Ukraine” coalition in return for Russian gas to heat their country this winter. Without Nordstream, they can only get Russian gas via pipelines that run through a number of other countries (which could prevent its passage if they wanted to).
(Caveat: I think it’s plausible, though not likely, that some hard-line faction within the Russian establishment did it to prevent Putin from “compromising” with the West (turning the gas back on to Germany in exchange for an end to their intervention) rather than destroying the West. I think it’s extremely unlikely that Putin chose to close off that option himself.)
@njmkw Here's the analysis I'm working on for this: https://youtu.be/Xb5mB5QDUSE
TLDW is that with the pipeline damaged, Russia can get out of contractual penalties by claiming force majeure, and it'd have been really easy for them to secretly do the sabotage.
(cross-posting here for visibility)
@njmkw Because they knew that Germany would never be buying gas through that pipeline again in any case. They would be insane to trust any Russian supply again. Destroying it sends a message with plausible deniability that strikes outside Ukraine are not off the table.
@Nostradamnedus That strikes me as too subtle for this Russian administration. Their actions have been pretty blunt up to this point. Wouldn't they at least be taking credit for it?
This is obviously subjective, but I get the vibe that the various explanations for why Russia would have done it start with the assumption that Russia must have done it, and look for something that could maybe explain why.
To me, it still seems like the anti-Russan motive is much clearer. (Stop Germany from having the option to capitulate if this winter is rough, as well as just damaging an expensive piece of Russian infrastructure.)
@PeterBorah If it had been anti-Russian forces then I would expect Russia would have thrown a massive fit over it. Instead they are mostly quiet except for occasionally mentioning it as an example of Western nefariousness.. Hardly the reaction you would expect from someone destroying something so supposedly important to them. But they also wouldn't wanna take credit lest they want tons of lawsuits and their frozen accounts being used to settle them.
@Nostradamnedus Hmm, my take is that Russia has been quiet about basically all of its setbacks during this war. Do they often "throw a massive fit" about attacks they've suffered?
@PeterBorah It would be an amazing opportunity to crack the Western alliance by showing that one of them attacked another but I guess they just wouldn't care about that?
@PeterBorah If it wasn't Russia, it was an anti-Russian force. If so, there'll be evidence that the Russians could use to prove their innocence and pit their rivals against each other. As such, if it wasn't Russia, the Russians would have every incentive to do a major investigation to prove the guilt of their enemies. But instead of being quick to investigate, they seem to be trying to interfere with investigations being done by the other countries involved?
@Endovior & @Nostradamnedus, the point about being able to drive a wedge between allies if they have proof of who did it is a good one. Thanks for that.