For the purposes of this market, "military support" is defined broadly. Deploying US soldiers obviously counts, but so does providing weapons or other resources.
The spirit of the market is that anything along the lines of the deal under discussion would be a YES.
Update 2025-03-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Non-Military Personnel Not Counted:
Only arrangements that are directly related to supporting the war effort will be counted as military support.
Simply deploying US personnel or workers, without a connection to the war effort, does not meet the criteria for military support.
Update 2025-03-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Military Aid Connection Clarification:
A YES outcome requires that, following the signing of the deal, military aid is resumed in a manner that appears connected to the deal.
If the deal is signed without an accompanying resumption of military aid, the resolution will be postponed until the end of the year to allow for further developments.
1,000The spirit of the market is that anything along the lines of the deal under discussion would be a YES.
The last I heard about is the deal does not include any kind of military support, just a commitment to have US personnel (not soldiers, but workers) in Ukraine. How would you resolve if this was confirmed to be the case ?
@Odoacre Interesting, where did you hear that? If it's not somehow related to supporting the war effort, I probably wouldn't count it.
@Odoacre Thanks, I found the full text of the proposed deal here:
https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2025/02/26/7205922/
It includes this paragraph in Section 4:
"Subject to applicable United States law, the Government of the United States of America will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine."
And this sentence in Section 10:
"The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement."
Overall, the deal seems ambiguous to me. The "necessary steps to protect mutual investments" could include military aid, but it sounds like nothing is actually guaranteed.
So if the deal is signed in its current version, I would have to wait to see whether the US actually sends additional military aid or not.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 since it looks like the US is planning to interrupt the current aid, if they did sign and then resume the aid that had already been promised, would that be a yes or a no?
@Odoacre If the deal is signed and then military aid is resumed, and it seems like those events are connected, this would be a YES.
If the deal is signed and no military aid is sent, I think I would still wait until the end of the year to resolve.
Tweet thread from Zelenskyy:
https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/1895793386990551336?s=46
He still wants to sign the mineral deal, when though he thinks it's not enough.
@Shai Well, at least when it comes to international diplomacy, lol.
I still have hope that the spat yesterday was just bluster for the cameras.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 How broadly do you see the "rare earths" part of the deal? For example if there's a deal for 80bn worth of aluminum, but nothing else, would this suffice?
@Primer Hmmm, now that you ask, I wish I had made the question a little broader. But I'll stick to the exact question text, and I'll use a consensus of news reports to determine what counts.
Based on this, I think aluminum alone wouldn't count: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/know-ukraines-mineral-wealth-rcna194070
Zelensky is at the White House today, and the deal is expected to be signed:
The NYT is reporting that there's a deal ready to be signed, possibly by the end of this week:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/world/europe/ukraine-minerals-deal.html
Apparently the US administration is pretty greedy and also doesn't want to give security guarantees. It doesn't look too good: https://www.politico.eu/article/us-donald-trump-asks-zelenskyy-half-ukraine-rare-minerals-military-support/
@MalachiteEagle the great thing about a rare earths for military deal is that it doesn't need trust. If the military doesn't arrive then you don't give up the rare earths.
