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.
1,000
3.00So the Biden regime, after suggesting that allowing ATACMS targeting Russian territory would not make a big enough difference in the war relative to the escalatory risk such policy would pose, has decided to do this anyway. And rather than frame it as a reaction to actions by Russia (e.g. NK troops), it has instead been framed (due to lack of alternative rationale) as an explicit escalatory measure, presumably to try to force a larger confrontation with Russia since that would make Trump's goal of extricating the US from that conflict more difficult.
My question to people bullish in YES given this development is: how much of that incremental YES% is due to ATACMS making a difference versus that decusion triggering an escalation that may further stress the Russian government?
Amusing article touching on some related points:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/storm-shadow-ukraine/
"The utterly confused state of British and European thinking about the military realities of the Ukraine conflict and Europe’s role is in large part due to the pitiful ignorance of military matters on the part of politicians — and therefore governments — who with the rarest of exceptions have never served in the military themselves, or bothered to study military issues, or devoted serious study to any foreign country.
This makes them completely dependent on advice from their foreign and security establishments; and for decades now, these establishments have outsourced to Washington not just responsibility for their national security, but thinking about it."
@MalachiteEagle totally irrational, given that Dems don't have a path to victory either. All they have is "we just gave another $X billion to Ukraine" -- yeah, but what is happening on the ground there?
@MalachiteEagle Ah, that. Sorry, thought it was a reaction to the election given the NK troops have been there for days.
@AlQuinn oh it's definitely the election. I was just responding to the question about what's actually happening on the ground
@AlQuinn except Wikipedia will probably declare a Ukrainian victory on the basis of Kiev still existing even after they give up all the russian speaking regions
@AlQuinn easy target for secondary sanctions. I think the west prefers Russia to be forced to get these products through smaller countries though. It's harder to pressure larger countries.
@TibaltMichel Russia doesn't need to do that in order for Ukraine to not win by the criteria here. Meanwhile, Ukraine is still begging the US for permission to conduct longer range attacks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/21/zelensky-ukraine-biden-weapons-plea/
I'm sure Jill will have a decision for Mr. Zelensky soon enough. There is no leadership coming from the White House on this; they are doing just enough to keep up appearances, but there is no real will to win the war, which would require incurring some risk. Compare this to what Israel is doing against Hamas and Hezbollah; that is what trying to win looks like.
@AlQuinn For Russia, securing Donbass and Crimea isn't enough for a victory, if Ukraine enters EU and NATO. Before deciding who is winning or will win the war, we must define what is a victory.
@TibaltMichel I don't think Russia will "win" either by a reasonable definition of the word. I expect this to become a frozen conflict (as I have since early 2023), unless Trump gets into office and negotiates an end to the madness. Note I want Ukraine to win and Russia to lose; just tired of the bullshit where Ukraine allies aren't actually trying to win.
@AlQuinn Believing that Trump could end anything is pure nonsense. He failed to end the frozen conflict when he was still in office. And his VP candidate repeatedly stated how much he "cares" about Ukraine.
@TibaltMichel and the founder disavowed modern Wikipedia as propagandistic trash so get your colleagues to pull their heads out of their asses
@FriendlyMerc The "founder" is an idiot who left the project because of his jealousy. He was jealous that Wikipedia worked and his brainchild, Nupedia, didn't.
@FriendlyMerc On Wikipedia, a rule states that everything must be extracted from a reliable source. What you say is the exact opposite: no sources, just a personal opinion based on nothing, like a bar discussion after too many drinks...
@TibaltMichel ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're early 20s , any older and your objectively retarded
@FriendlyMerc Oh, that's funny, I specifically work on propaganda. Exposing the Russian networks in Europe is one of the most inteeresting thing you can do.
@DarkTiberion79 only russians make propaganda and only russian society has "oligarchs" as well ill bet, you're very smart im sure, 20 good boy points for your next soy pop
@DarkTiberion79 According to Gallup, 69% of Americans have little or no trust in mainstream media, which is why Wikipedia (Wokeipedia?) is seen as biased. Stating that things on Wikipedia are "reliable" because Wikipedia declared various unreliable sources to be reliable is naive. The 2024 presidential elections were, in part, reflecting the narrative collapse around the MSM lies, since the media gatekeepers have been revealed as frauds and can no longer dictate the terms of political debate. Joe Rogan's Trump episode got 100x the prime time viewership of MSNBC (MSDNC) or CNN (Clinton News Network). The corrupt MSM is finally dead, and Wikipedia will be the last place you hear about this development.
@AlQuinn So you judge the reliability of a media on the number of the people who watch it? Or on the number of people who trust it. Absurd. The reliability is judged on facts, not opinions. If mainstream media are unreliable, so "non-mainstream" are 100x more untrustworthy.
@DarkTiberion79 If the Americans don't trust media, the problem is definitely on their side, not on the side of the journalists who are doing their best to provide reliable news. Journalism is a job with rules, not a hobby between two stupid videos.
The only thing that the elections revealed is that a chain of lies gets you to the White House. Disgusting.
@AlQuinn It is not a coincidence that the Democratic vote is correlated with the level of education. Falsehood relies on the stupidity of more and more Americans to gain traction. The solution is to educate people, not make them dumber.
@DarkTiberion79 I mean, you're begging the question here. If you assume that the media is highly reliable then you're also going to conclude that wikipedia is beyond reproach and that people who doubt the media are idiots. I guess you're French or something? Europe is a bit behind the US in recognizing and coming to terms with false narratives. I'm actually happy MSM propaganda and woke got so bad in the US, since it made the problems with our institutions so apparent. I wish you luck in gaining future wisdom.
@DarkTiberion79 imagine coping this hard, you're a great propaganda expert lmao 🤣
Try learning some history instead and stop supporting coups like pleb tard