June 30, 2026$145K Vol.This market will resolve to "Yes" if active military personnel officially affiliated with any NATO or EU country enter Ukraine for combat-related military purposes directly pertaining to the ongoing conflict with Russia by December 31, 2025, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". For military personnel to qualify toward a "Yes" resolution, they must be 1) officially acknowledged as active military by the NATO or EU entity or member state they are affiliated with; 2) be publicly acknowledged by NATO or an EU-affiliated entity to have entered Ukraine for a combat-related military purpose directly pertaining to the ongoing conflict with Russia. For military personnel to qualify toward a "Yes" resolution they need be active duty and acknowledged as described above. Participation in a combat role is necessary for this market to resolve to "Yes" (e.g. military personnel providing training or intelligence support would not qualify toward a "Yes" resolution, however drone pilots or infantry directly attacking Russian troops, or soldiers targeting and downing missiles from Ukrainian soil would qualify toward a "Yes" resolution). The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from NATO, the EU, or member states of either entity, however a consensus of credible reporting will also be used.
NATO and EU troops fighting in Ukraine by 2025 is a serious concern, but their involvement could escalate the conflict beyond what the West is currently willing to support.
The Poles won't put up with this forever. We spoke about this the other night on the latest episode of our podcast.
check out our discussion [link removed]
Wamp wamp.
would acitve combat aircraft operating in Ukrainian airspace qualify as yes?
honestly this is much more likely than Z resigning or Ukraine war being over before April 19th. All the zealous american geniuses should spend their enthusiasm here instead. I guess they don't because it's not something Trump talks about. But without the US support (which is as good as gone), and without a ceasefire (which is happening only in Neverland considering the extreme Russian - and US - rethoric) then the prospect of Europe engaging more directly in supporting Ukraine is becoming a lot less far fetched.
Merz becomes the next German Chancellor and will supply taurus missiles to Ukraine. Taurus missiles require German soldiers to control the technology. These missiles cannot be controlled by Ukrainians with short training, which is why Scholz did not deliver them.
Germany has been in many countries since the 90s. In Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, certainly over 50 missions worldwide. But the real combat missions have only been since 1999 and the Yugoslav war.
this is simply false - south koreans have taurus and don't need any hand holding. Ukraine as already similar systems to Taurus like SCALP-EG and can fire them without french / Uk military personel
Alice weidel: “Taurus cannot be operated by any Ukrainians. German soldiers would have to be sent to Ukraine to train Taurus.”
I don’t necessarily disagree, but Alice Weidel as a source is just as trustworthy as Putin himself
true but still possible
When? Where? Facts of Ukrainian can fire them?
Happy to buy Yes here as a hedge against my life
i hope this doesn't happen
would peacekeeping infantry on the russian border qualify, if they do not actively engage?
"combat-related military purposes". Does peacekeeping sounds like combat to you? Jesus.
sounds like a pretty "combat-related" activity to dig trenches, point arms at the russian border, place mines etc. as an active infantry personell. You‘ve seen some of the rule clarifications / disputes on here? Jesus.
the most likely reasons for NATO troops to be in Ukraine are intel, training, peacekeeping. Would have been nice to explicitly state where peacekeeping lies. But given the v aggressive "Yes" resolution examples, I think most UMA would resolve peacekeeping as No most of the time. Peacekeepers can only fight in self-defense...but if they were upholding any of the ceasefires we've had so far, absolutely they'd be fighting and if that happens, how will this resolve... I'd say No given the steer in the rules but I'd say absolutely there's a chance of a contingent of armchair-lawyers disputing. PolyM needs a mechanism to allow clarification of rules.
It is explicitely stated that it should be for combat related purposes during an ongoing conflict. Peacekeeping to enforce a ceasefire is litteraly the opposite.
if they're peacekeeping with flowers, there's no argument. If you're given guns and told to return fire when fired upon, I think SOME would say that's a combat role. We both agree that peacekeeping should "obviously" not resolve as YES. I just don't have as much faith in humanity that PolyM bettors would unanimously agree with us. Let's ask Gemini "is peacekeeping a combat or non-combat role?"...it says it's complex; some peacekeeping can be a non-combat role (eg monitoring a ceasefire), or it can be a combat role if the mandate includes eg protecting civilians and one party isn't cooperating with the peace process (as per Russia in every ceasefire thus far). This is the kind of ambiguity that would eg make me bet 100 instead of 1000. It would just be nice to request and receive clarification early on to avoid potential bs later on.
What is this market mercenaries are already fighting for ukraine
read the rules
By trading, you agree to the Terms of Use.