Ukraine Post #1: Prediction Markets

I am working on seeing how comprehensively I can cover and discuss the war, but that takes time and the speed premium is super high. I decided to start here, and write quickly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes, oversights, dumbness, and so on.

While I strive to provide sufficient Covid-19 news that you need not check other sources (and I will continue to do that), I will not be making any such claims regarding Ukraine even if I make regular posts. Please do not rely on me for such news.

The goal of this first post is to start our bearings with what prediction markets are available, what we might learn from them, and what markets might make them more useful.

Metaculus

Unfortunately, prediction markets so far have let us down when we need them most.

That is because the real money markets have so far been mostly unwilling or unable to touch questions surrounding the war, so most (but not all) of the markets we have to work with are on Metaculus (or Manifold Markets but that’s a mess).

Metaculus has some useful questions being asked, but Metaculus works by aggregation of all predictions. Even if you ignore their other issues, when something happens, the market is simply not going to adjust quickly.

This proxy market in particular seems illustrative.

This is on some level a profoundly silly question. The answer is not automatically 33%. As time outside the window goes by the conditional probability goes up, as time inside the window goes by it goes down. There could easily be seasonal effects as well. If provocative actions especially wars are more likely to happen during better weather, chances of war might be higher during the summer. So I’d be inclined, absent the Ukraine situation, to put this at 40%-45%, although I have no idea what you would do with that information.

Except now. Now we have the Ukraine war. If the nukes do fly, it seems like that would mostly happen before summer. Things are moving quickly. Thus, to the extent that there is a non-trivial short-term probability of nuclear war, this number should be moving. Yet it isn’t, because there is insufficient incentive to get people to do things that would cause it to move.

We can of course attempt to correct for such bias. If we know that Metaculus markets universally ‘move too slow’ then by tracking their rates of change we can get at least some amount of useful info. We can also combine that with tracking the number of predictions made over time, since new predictions are made now, but I strongly suspect a lot of people are simply copying market medians.

For example, we have this.

Early on this was in the 80% range, then after it became clear this would not happen quickly it fell to the 70% range and has been moving around between 65%-70%.

I did quickly make predictions in a few Ukraine-related markets, and it didn’t feel like I was at all being incentivized to reveal my true estimates, and did feel like I was supremely anchored to existing predictions. And now am I going to go back and continuously update? I doubt it. And I definitely don’t expect most people to actually make their distributional estimates match their actual distributions that carefully due to the workload required.

In theory we could hope to do better by looking at the exact distributions. We have a graph:

If we had the same graph from 24 hours ago, we could take the diff between them, then discount all the people who were predicting inside the existing range (e.g. assume anyone saying ~65%-~75% had no real info to offer us) and see what that says.

My presumption is that the current estimate is high from the informational perspective of working from only public info. It would be a nightmare to try and physically take Kyiv and there seems little chance the city will surrender. It might happen anyway, but it doesn’t seem like a big favorite from here.

Also, in addition to the basic ‘adjustments here are slow’ principle we also can work backwards from the past estimates. Russia’s plans seemed to involve Kyiv already having fallen by now, and a lot of people were predicting it would fall very quickly. So given that it’s not close to falling now, the chances of it holding out should shoot up dramatically. For it still to be only 1/3 to happen, your prior chance needs to have been very low (1/10 or less).

What Metaculus is good for is that they generate good ideas for markets, and provide reasonable initial prices. It is then the job of other places to pick those markets up and run with them.

Here is a complete list of the Ukraine Conflict Challenge questions.

To summarize what’s here:

Will Kyiv fall by April 1? 69%.

As discussed above, I think this is modestly high right now and I’d sell this down to 60% and stay ‘ahead of the curve’ until there is a real money market. I entered 60% at first, then I moved it to 55% because of the market on various cities being captured, since Kyiv seems harder at this point.

Will the UN Override Russia’s veto and condemn the invasion? 72%.

I think this is substantially low. It takes a 2/3 majority but early votes seem to indicate that they have room to spare on that. I’d buy to 80%.

Will Putin be president of the Russian Federation on 1 February 2023? 75%.

That’s one of the biggest questions and I’d like to see a real money market that moves properly in real time. It’s mostly been higher than this previously. Note that this resolves ambiguously in many scenarios as written, whereas a real-money market would need to be different and pick something that would give a definitive answer in all or at least most cases (e.g. who has control over some particular location, or defer to some authority), or have a rule that if it is ambiguous it waits to resolve until the ambiguity is gone (and then it resolves to the new state of affairs, whichever way it goes).

Consensus of sources that seem to know what they are talking about seems to be that him leaving would almost always be a palace coup or similar scenario rather than a popular uprising.

Unless Putin is in much poorer health than we think, the question hinges (I think, and given the information we have and can consider) on whether Putin can and knows he can ‘declare victory and go home’ in some way, and Russia can survive and he can stay in power.

If the answer is yes, then I like his chances well above 75%. If the answer is no, he’s in deep trouble and 75% is generous.

I have large uncertainty on this question. I have seen strong claims in both directions. Some think that Putin can easily pull back and purge anyone who does not fall in line, if he wants to go that route. Others think that Putin would be finished if he backed down now, including the hypothesis that Putin attacked Ukraine out of weakness to maintain his position, so a failure would only weaken it further. Certainly the damage being done to Russia’s economy has to increase his risk, and there are good reasons he is sitting far, far away from everyone else at the very end of a ludicrously long table at every meeting.

I think I’d go down to 70% or so, maybe lower given that the market gives an additional ‘out’ to the No side if Russia doesn’t control 90% of its current territory for whatever reason, but the prediction here seems reasonable.

Will Ukraine join the Union State (currently Russia and Belarus) by 2023 (as measured by any government with 30%+ of Ukrainian territory)? 20%.

One can think of this as a combination of two questions. First, will Russia be able to install a puppet government that controls 30%+ of Ukraine? Second, if they do, will they instruct it to immediately join the Union State, making it explicit that rather than being a ‘demilitarized’ state they were now a vassal state to Russia, and take this technical path rather than a different one (such as outright annexation, or forming a new different union, or what not)?

We do have the accidentally published editorial as evidence that a quick union was indeed the plan, although that is far from conclusive.

I would sell this down to 15% (but don’t want to mess further with such a market). This may have been the plan before, but under current conditions, even with an installed puppet such a declaration would embolden resistance quite a bit in exchange for not much practical gain, so I’d expect such things to wait.

Will Germany have an operating Nuclear Power Plant on June 1, 2023? 55%.

They’re officially floating the idea. It was already beyond obviously overdetermined to be right to double down on nuclear power, and the current crisis only adds to that and the Economic Ministry has floated the idea. However, it seems their shutting them down had progressed quite a ways, and nuclear power was deeply unpopular Germany. Someone needs to get a poll in the field about this (or alert me to where one is), but I definitely like this as a prediction market. My gut told me that people are being somewhat overoptimistic so I went with 50% but I don’t know much and have little idea.

Will Russia be removed from the UN Security Council by 2024? 2%.

No. I put in 1%. This is a Can’t Happen. The UN has no procedure for doing this, if one of the big five goes rogue there is essentially nothing it can do.

Will Russia invade any country other than Ukraine in 2022? 10%.

Reading the arguments in the comments makes it clear this number is too low. There’s only a few percent chance they attack a NATO country or Finland, but they could easily attack Georgia or Moldova, or be considered to be invading Belarus if their government were to fall – it doesn’t seem like Putin would be that likely to simply allow that to happen. And the base rate of them doing this recently is pretty high. I put in 20%, if it was a normal market I’d likely only buy to 15% or so.

Will three or more European countries stop buying natural gas from Russia? 65%.

It looks like this is a positive regardless of who pulls the plug so I modified the wording here to reflect that, but they do still have to announce they are not buying gas, so it’s weird. I went with 60% because I do not expect Putin to cut off sales but he might if pushed hard enough, and there will be increasing pressure on European countries to pull the plug themselves and some of them might do so in order to claim the moral high ground – there’s room for some of them to do this and get LNG instead. And that goes against my gut instinct that says this isn’t going to happen, sufficiently that I don’t want to call BS too much on the market.

Will Russia recognize Transnistria in 2022? 35%.

This seems like a really bad time to suddenly make an additional such move, and it is worth noting that the 10% number on Russia invading another nation seems not that compatible with this since it only required 100 ground troops. I don’t know the details but I’m guessing this is high and putting in 25%.

How much foreign aid will USA provide to Ukraine? 2.65 billion.

I think the answer could be quite the hell of a lot. Ukraine is huge, there are millions displaced and lots of infrastructure being destroyed. If the war ends with Ukraine intact, massive aid seems likely. If the war continues, it seems likely aid will increase a lot even if it ends up largely being about helping with the humanitarian disaster, and it could go big well beyond that. So I put in a higher median and a positive skew, but again I don’t want to defy markets too much so I didn’t push it. I’d prefer to see a series of binary markets on different numbers the way Polymarket does it.

Will Russia control at least 3 of Kyiv, Lviv, Odessa, Mariupol, Kherson and Kharkiv by June 2022? 69%.

This is defined as 50%+ of each of three of the six cities, for 48 consecutive hours. Right now Russia seems to mostly be settling for shelling and siege tactics rather than trying to take the cities outright. This seems like it is much easier for Russia to succeed at than taking Kyiv by April. There’s somewhat more time to do it, and it involves softer/smaller targets, and they only need three. If Kyiv falls this will happen, so to be consistent this should be substantially higher.

Will Russia annex Transnistria in 2022? 11%.

This is saying one third of the time that Russia recognizes Transnistria it annexes it, or even more if there is some chance Russia will annex it outright first although that seems to not be how they work in such situations. I put it in at 10% since it seems more plausible to me that they’d annex it a larger percentage of the time that they recognize it, but I don’t have detailed knowledge here.

Will US infrastructure be successfully attacked by Russian cybercriminals in 2022? 50%.

This is super ambiguous from the title so here are the rules:

This question will resolve positively if the following conditions are met:

  1. At any time from February 25, 2022 to January 1, 2023, one or more cyberattacks successfully disrupt some part of the US critical infrastructure (electricity, water supply, heating, sewer systems, gas/oil/petrol processing and distribution, transportation and aviation, communications networks, medical care, security/defense/military, banking and financial infrastructure). The target of the attack may be publicly or privately owned or operated.
  2. The attack is attributed to hackers from the Russian government or sponsored by the Russian government, according to statements by the US federal government or US intelligence agencies.
  3. At least one of the following conditions is met regarding the severity of the attack:
    1. The attack is estimated to have caused at least $1 million direct property damage (excluding intellectual property).
    2. The attack is estimated to have caused at least $10 million of direct or indirect costs to the economy.
    3. The attack causes loss of an essential service (such as electricity, water, gas pumps) affecting at least 10,000 people for at least 1 week.
    4. The attack causes a sharp rise in price of essential goods (such as food or gasoline) by at least 50% for a community of at least 10,000 people.
    5. The attack is estimated to have caused at least 10 fatalities.

To assess the above criteria, Metaculus Admins will consider reports by US government agencies, research and analytics organizations, or credible media reports.

Those first two conditions in requirement three are pretty damn easy to meet. $10 million of indirect costs to the economy is nothing. And lots of different kinds of stuff count here. All they have to do is ground a few planes or disrupt a few hospitals, and it’s enough.

The tricky part is attribution. Russian hacker alone doesn’t do it, it needs to be sponsored by the Russian government according to official US statements. And that seems like the kind of thing we will look to avoid doing even if it’s true, rather than something we will say if it’s false. We will likely seek to avoid such attribution unless we have little or no choice, to avoid escalation. So on reflection I’m actually going to come down slightly on the no side and say 45%.

Will At Least 5 Million refugees from Ukraine seek assistance from other countries? 32%.

That is a huge percentage of Ukraine’s population, but already 7 million have been displaced. If Russia pushes hard and Ukraine is in ruins and under foreign occupation it seems highly likely that we could get to five million, which would only be slightly higher as a percentage than the Yugolsav Wars if commentator is correct. UN High Commissioner is saying ‘up to 4 million’ and has incentives to estimate high but also perhaps low to avoid sounding crazy or causing despair. There are already hundreds of thousands across the border and it’s day five. I went with 40%.

Will at least 100k people be killed in the Russia-Ukraine War? 28%.

More than 50k? 46%.

More than 25k? 75%.

More than 10k? 97%.

If things continue for more than a few days it will be over 10k if it isn’t already. For it not to hit 25k there would need to be a withdraw by Russia inside of a week or at most two, 50k within March, if Ukraine’s claims are remotely true. The full 100k gets more involved, and depends on the extent to which Russia avoids versus seeks civilian casualties. I put in 37% for 100k and 60% for 50k because I am confident the prediction is still lagging and things look like they’re going to drag on quite a bit.

Will NATO invoke Article 5 by March 31, 2022? 3%.

That is a super scary number to see on this market, less so given that ‘cyberattacks can trigger article 5’ has been said explicitly, but would likely not trigger a military response. And this is only for the next month. I put in 4% given the statement on cyberattacks.

What percentage of Russian GDP will be spent on the military in 2022? 7.7%

I seriously hate trying to work out these graphs and given how annoying it is I don’t expect anyone else to take it seriously either, but the key thing to remember here is that Russia’s GDP is about to go down quite a lot, no matter what else happens. I do not believe this market has taken that fact into account yet, so I entered numbers somewhat higher than the existing market. But I don’t know how to actually get the right answer here.

Will Brent Oil breach $140 before May? 23%.

All the financial markets are basically saying this is super unlikely if the commenters’ calculations are correct. If I cared I would check, but here I mostly don’t because this market doesn’t enlighten us much about anything important. So I’m going to enter 14% and be done with it.

If there is a successful Russian cyberattack on US infrastructure in 2022, will banking or finance systems be attacked? 58%.

I mean I don’t know how to think about this, but my guess is it is less of a target than it seems so I went slightly lower but mostly just trusted them so 55%.

If successful attack, will communications networks be attacked? 51%.

Again, seriously, I got nothing. Same with the 50% on security/military/emergency, 50% on electric grid, 48% on oil or natural gas. I’m sure these are terrible predictions since they’re all the same but I don’t want to add extra noise nor do I have time to do the research.

What percent of GDP will USA spend on military expenses in 2022? ~4%.

I don’t see any reason for us to add a lot more military spending at this time, it will probably stay very close to where it is. Not like more spending helps us here.

Anyway, that’s most of them, and I’m running out of time, so I’m calling it there.

Polymarket

As a general principle, it seems good as a Polymarket or Kalshi to take anything posted by Metaculus getting a reasonable number of predictions that it believes it can confidently resolve, which is not a security or otherwise illegal to offer, and offer it.

Kalshi is so far staying out of the whole situation entirely, so for real money that leaves Polymarket. What do they have so far?

Here are their global politics offerings right now.

That’s 92% for a Russian bank to be disconnected from SWIFT, which was a very good market to be offering a few days ago but has little point now. The markets on meetings between Biden/Putin and Larvov/Blinken are depressingly low but also mostly not relevant. So that leaves one market with an important question, and it’s close to a toss-up:

Translating this into the probabilities of other outcomes is not easy. Zelenskyy could be killed or captured including via assassination, or he could strike various deals from total victory to capitulation. He might leave Kyiv were it to be mostly lost or he might refuse. We do not know. Still, changes in this market seem highly correlated with Ukraine improving its position. If Zelenskyy is president on April 22 then that bodes quite badly for Russia’s chances.

What are the most important markets to get into real money quickly, not counting markets involving death, that could be done quickly?

There are at least three ways to think about this. One could think about

  1. What markets would be most informative.
  2. What markets would enable us to make better decisions.
  3. What markets would generate the most volume and interest.

All of these matter. Which matters most depends on your perspective.

Generating interest and volume means focusing on short term questions, but the most important questions are mostly longer term than that. We want to know what the overall outcomes will be, rather than what will happen in the next week. What will happen in the next week (or day) does bear on the long term outcome, but not as directly or cleanly.

To me the most important questions to be asking first are the tail risks. What are the chances that things get much, much worse? How seriously should we consider relocating or taking other actions in case this becomes World War 3? The problem is that prediction markets are terrible at differentiating 1% from 3% due to time value of money and bias and various other issues, and now there’s additional issues since the world state is very different under different outcomes.

Still, I would want to do it anyway, and ask questions like “Will Russia detonate a nuclear weapon?” or “Will a nuclear weapon detonate in a NATO country?” Even if they trade at 1%, they would represent fire alarms if they ever stopped trading in that region and started trading higher.

The question of NATO invoking article 5 is the clean implementation that has already been done, so I would definitely start there. Ideally we would offer more than one end date for this, to see whether there is longer term danger as well.

I’d also like to see a market on a No Fly zone being announced, as that represents a serious escalation. Even if the answer is ‘never going to happen’ I’d feel better knowing that.

Other escalations are difficult to quantify. One is whether Russia will use biological or chemical weapons.

Thus, I’d ask stuff like:

  1. Will a NATO country invoke article 5 by [date]?
  2. Will Russia invade any country other than Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia or Belarus by [date]?
  3. Will a nuclear weapon detonate in Europe by [date]?
  4. Will a nuclear weapon detonate in a NATO country by [date]?
  5. Will at least 10 nuclear weapons detonate anywhere in the world by [date]?
  6. Will Russia use biological or chemical weapons?

The second category of question is on the potential progress of the war.

So we have things like:

  1. Will Russia control [Kyiv, other major city, some number of such cities] by [date]?
  2. Will Russia control at least X% of Ukrainian [population/territory] by [date] according to the Wikipedia map? Or a particular place/objective?
  3. Will there be video proof that Zelenskyy is physically in [Kyiv/Ukraine], alive and not in Russian custody during the week/month of [date]?
  4. Will Zelenskyy be President of Ukraine on [date]?
  5. Will Putin be President of Russia on [date]?
  6. Will there be an officially agreed-upon cease fire in place on [date]?
  7. Will Ukraine join the Union State by [date]?
  8. Will Ukraine announce its demilitarization by [date]?
  9. Will Ukraine officially recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea by [date]?
  10. Will Ukraine officially recognize the independence of Donbas by [date]?
  11. Will Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine by [date] [with/without] excluding the Donbas and Crimea regions?

Remember, for many of these questions, we want multiple binary options with different thresholds and dates, to get a better overall picture. And of course what counts as the government of Ukraine is a tricky question here – many questions are in large part proxies for ‘Russia has set up a puppet government that can be said to be the new Ukrainian government de facto’ but could also happen with a peace agreement of varying degrees of severity.

The next category of questions involve economic and other sanctions. Some of them are trivial ‘fun’ stuff but also serve as proxies for the situation by asking if sanctions will generally be lifted or not or how far things will go.

  1. Will the Russian Central Bank’s assets remain frozen on [date]?
  2. Will [major Russian bank / banks]’s assets remain frozen on [date]?
  3. Will the Russian stock market be open on [date]?
  4. Will foreigners be allowed to sell Russian stocks on [date]?
  5. Will [Poland/country/EU] deny Russia access to its airspace on [date]?
  6. Will Russia be allowed to play FIFA-sponsored matches on [date]?
  7. Will there be a new owner of Chelsea football club on [date]?
  8. Will at least $X of [NYC/London] real estate be confiscated or sold by Russian nationals by [date] (could be hard to verify, but could be interesting)
  9. Will Russia cut off gas sales to Europe on [date]?
  10. Will Russia sell at least [amount] of natural gas to Europe the [week/month] of [date]?

One can go on quite a bit, as there are a lot of proxies some of which are interesting in their own rights. This only scratches the surface.

Then there are questions of additional measures we might take, and the refugee situation. Some of these are of course ‘nudges’ to point out things we might do.

  1. Will Germany have an operational nuclear power plant on [date]?
  2. Will the United States [approve/announce] the construction of a new nuclear power plant by [date]?
  3. Will the United States substantially change its regulatory approval process for nuclear power plants by [date]?
  4. Will the United States announce $X or more additional funding for energy production [of any kind/nuclear/green that isn’t nuclear] by [date]?
  5. Will [any European nation/X nations] announce the construction of [a/X] new currently unannounced nuclear power plant(s) by [date]?
  6. Will any [min X size] Western country institute a carbon tax of at least X% by [date]?
  7. Will [country/EU/USA] offer asylum to all deserting Russian soldiers by [date]?
  8. Will [country/EU/USA] offer entry to all Russian citizens [with a college degree/with a sufficient job offer/at all]?
  9. How many Ukrainian refugees will enter the EU by [date]?
  10. How much foreign aid will USA send Ukraine by [date]?
  11. How much foreign aid will all countries send Ukraine by [date]?
  12. [Various questions surrounding cyber attacks but they seem not well-defined for now.]
  13. Will Sweden join NATO by [date]?
  14. Will Finland join NATO by [date]?
  15. Will Ukraine be a candidate member of the EU on [date]?
  16. And hell: Will Ukraine join NATO by [date]?

That’s a huge list, so it’s important to know where to focus and start. My gut tells me you first want a few questions from the first category and the big ones in the second one including Putin and Zelenskyy and some of the war goals, and a few markets that serve as proxies for ‘economic sanctions are lifted.’ And definitely ask about gas sales.

The last category seems less urgent to me, but definitely questions there worth asking as well.

I didn’t include Russian economic numbers directly because they could be securities, but if that’s not an issue one should definitely do that.

For many of these markets, getting a market group with different dates or thresholds will often be the most valuable next thing to do instead of adding another distinct question, especially since the logistical cost of additional markets like that would be lower.

I am sure I am overlooking a bunch of good ideas here, but this is certainly enough fuel to get one started. Liquidity is important, so one does not want to spread too thin, and for now 40+ questions would definitely be too thin. But 2 real questions is most definitely not thin enough.

I’d love to make lots and lots of predictions on these questions, beyond what I offered above, but I still am gathering bearings, was previously no expert, and speed premium says get this up as quickly as possible. So I am doing that.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Ukraine Post #1: Prediction Markets

  1. Daniel Tilkin says:

    FYI, https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7760/Will-Vladimir-Putin-remain-president-of-Russia-through-2022 is at 70%, with the bid/ask spread at 70/72.

    https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7764/How-many-countries-vote-to-condemn-Russia-in-the-UN-General-Assembly-by-3-11 has a number of buckets, but the buckets 129 and below total to 71%, and the buckets 130 and above total to 46%.

    https://www.predictit.org/markets/search?query=russia shows all the related questions. Searching on “Ukraine” doesn’t currently add anything new.

  2. Basil Marte says:

    32. Will [any European nation/X nations] announce the construction of [a/X] new currently unannounced nuclear power plant(s) by [date]?
    Hungary may end up contributing negative 2.4 GW to this, at least in the form of a significant delay. Extending/replacing the existing plant at Paks had been going forward for years, in early 2022 they were preparing to break ground in months. Alas, the general contractor is Rosatom.

    • Rotten Bananas says:

      Might ask questions about projected populations in any major country, even if the results might be similar in accuracy to UN forecasts and not very useful to predict sudden catastrophes like nuclear holocaust, AGI-led attacks or any other run-away processes.

  3. Ninety-Three says:

    “If we had the same graph from 24 hours ago, we could take the diff between them, then discount all the people who were predicting inside the existing range”
    It seems like this should be doable. I don’t know if Metaculus archives that data, but going forward it would be trivial to set a bot to scrape those pages daily, and not that hard to have it decompose the graphs into raw data it can do a diff on.

    Are you looking at doing that? Interested in someone doing it?

  4. Dave says:

    How could a prediction market possibly be expected to pay out in case of a nuclear war between the United States and Russia?

    • TheZvi says:

      Depends how big a nuclear war. We’ve got this image that every such war will be total and target population centers and be Sic Transit Gloria Mundi, but there are a lot of other ways for it to go that are more limited. I do agree it messes with the odds.

      • Rotten Bananas says:

        We tend to underestimate catastrophic risks like all-out nuclear wars because of normalcy bias and probably some form of anthropic principle.

        Given the stalemate in Ukraine and the likely international backlash, it is very probable that strategic decisions to escalate will be made by Putin, and if he overestimates his own national survivability of a nuclear war, he may pursue the option of nuclear extermination on the EU & US in order to permanently cripple these countries’ national power (without considering certain retaliation permanently crippling Russia’s power also). A very chilling prospect to consider.

      • Dave says:

        Right, it’s essentially a bet on a limited regional war or a very small strategic exchange. Which may be a very small part of the possibility space if pessimists are right about the likelihood of escalation once the line is crossed.

  5. Presto says:

    Fall of Kiev is too low. You have to adjust for Ukraine having won (almost being the only player on that front) the propaganda war in the West. Not even talking about the moral case for supporting Ukraine – the massive amounts of disinfo pushing “Ukraine strong” is probably coloring our (yours, mine, the betters’ on Metaculus) views of the battlefields. So outside view is push it to 70% at least.

    Inside view: we’re eight days into the war and the Russians are already basically at Kiev gates. Giving them one extra month, absent West interference, is a lot.

    • TheZvi says:

      I can definitely buy the argument that any market is going to be Ukraine-biased and you have to adjust for that. However, was it Ukraine-biased before the war to the same extent? If I compare the market pre-war to post-war, the adjustment over time is a key component here.

      I could be wrong but I do buy the argument that modern urban warfare is a nightmare and Kyiv has 3 million people. Getting to the outskirts is not too difficult, but taking the city seems pretty hard. But I don’t know.

      It’s all about what you are zeroing out and what you’re not. If all you’re doing is saying ‘any markets are going to be overconfident in Ukraine because media situation’ I think that’s a VERY fair thing to say! And it’s very possible I didn’t account for it enough.

      • Ninety-Three says:

        It seems obvious to me that the market was not nearly as Ukraine-biased two weeks ago. People previously did not want Ukraine to fall, but they mostly did not care or think about Ukraine. Compare that to the firehose of positive sentiment currently directed at any and all things Ukrainian and you need to have a very particular model of the market for it to not end up shifting significantly.

    • KM says:

      This logic seems correct to me, especially in a fake-money market like Metaculus. In a real money market, “popular sentiment” style opinions are untenable in the long run for financial reasons, and well capitalized “sharp” bettors can keep the market efficient despite being outnumbered 100:1.

      Metaculus is nice, but it more closely resembles an internet poll structurally than a market, which for issues like this is going to be problematic.

      Knowing zero about the military situation, I’d be buying the “yes” here.

  6. Rotten Bananas says:

    Might ask questions about projected populations in any major country, even if the results might be similar in accuracy to UN forecasts and not very useful to predict sudden catastrophes like nuclear holocaust, AGI-led attacks or any other run-away processes.

  7. Craken says:

    Almost all of the photos I’ve seen, all of the video show Russian casualties, destroyed equipment, retreats, and defeats. Other than that, all I’ve seen image-wise is some damage to civilian property. Yet, the Russians have gained ground, the Ukrainians have lost ground. Even if we assume the accuracy of this evidence, we are missing half of this part of the story. That said, I think Russian losses of men and material have been significant already; this derives from the sum of evidence; for example, I know of one Twitter account from the Armenia-Azerbaijan war, where he accurately counted destroyed military equipment (he says he can’t keep up with Russian losses thus far). But I also think the Russians have not yet brought to bear anything like their full array of weaponry. Artillery attacks, long a Russian specialty, have been very light; air attacks by the air force that now has nearly total air superiority have been rare. Putin seems to have attempted a quick decapitation strike with a overly optimistic political follow-up, and failed. Their war strategy is changing now; the Russians will start fighting like Russians, which unfortunately entails much more brutality. The bulk of Ukraine’s effective ground combat units are still holding positions in the long contested Donbass region. They face encirclement in the next week or two. In the event that they evade this trap, they’re unlikely to escape with any heavy weaponry or equipment. Kiev faces encirclement still sooner. Ukraine has little ammunition in reserve. With Russian air control, encircled areas will have no resupply options for munitions. Thus, the naive view of the military situation east of the Dnieper is grim. To the west, the most defensible region is the Ukrainian Carpathians, which covers around 20,000 square miles and borders four nations.

    The open question in Ukraine, then, is the human element. How will Russian soldiers interact with Ukrainian civilians? How will Russian civilians interact with their government? Will logistics be fouled up in such fashion as to cause starvation? Will guerilla warfare become widespread (something the West seems to be encouraging)? Will volunteer fighters from the West be effective enough to be considered an important escalation by the Russians? Will China be able to maintain a pro-Russian stance in its population contra the developed world? Will American political dynamics cause the administration to do something reckless or something prudent? All of this is difficult to predict. It is clear, however, that Russia is being routed in the information war. Some of the above questions are not amenable to prediction markets, but maybe the questions concerning the outbreak of guerrilla war in occupied territory and the presence of foreign fighters would be useful; they may determine Ukraine’s ultimate fate, or at least the fate of Ukrainian Ukraine.

    I put the fall of Kiev by April 1 at 30%. The Russians don’t have the manpower for large scale urban fighting and it looks like there will be enough fighters and supplies to hold out for that long.

    But, I think Mariupol, Kharkiv, Kherson will be taken long before June: 80%. That 20% is my allowance for the human element. Militarily, they can’t be saved.

    I think deaths will exceed 100k because of urban warfare, followed by guerrilla warfare in the western reaches. But, it’s possible peace will break out one way or anther. 60%.

    I agree with the analysis on American aid, but I would go with a higher median of $10 billion.

    Russian military spending as a % of GDP. That the ruble is collapsed has little relevance to this % because the Russian military system is almost wholly autarkic. The rest of the economy is more interconnected, which will cause the GDP in real terms to decline ~10%. I’ll guess 10% decline in real GDP plus 30% increase in spending mostly due to a major increase in logistical costs. 11% of GDP.

    On Zelensky: the Russians need to depose him as quickly as possible. I think they know this. But, they don’t have any great options as to the how. They don’t want him haunting them as a martyr; they don’t want him leading a Ukrainian gov’t in exile; they don’t want him in a Russian prison, the object of ongoing anti-Russian media campaigns. I’m close to the market on this; I’d sell to 40%.

    I agree that tail risks are far away the most important to track. The electricity grid in the US is said to be somewhat unstable; if just one region of the grid went black for weeks, it would inflict a serious ramifying shock to America and to the global economy. The nuke risk looks very low so far. I could imagine them employing tactical nukes against a competitive conventional military–but not any other way. The only nuke scenario I can think of is some kind of accident. Always possible, slightly more likely under stressful conditions. <1% If, as I do not expect, urban warfare drags on for months and Russian casualties become a serious problem for Putin, they might attempt some type of plausibly deniable chem/bio warfare. 3%

    A longer term bet might be placed on whether the dollar's reserve currency status will be significantly affected by placing another nation or two outside the system. China has made moves in this direction, including issuing its CBDC. But, China likes having a huge trade surplus for domestic and strategic reasons, a condition that would be impossible to sustain if it seriously attempted to de-dollarize its accounts.

    • TheZvi says:

      I am going to get the Covid post ready before returning to Ukraine, but I will note my model of why we don’t have the ‘other side of the story’ here is that Russia has chosen to tell their side as ‘there is no war’ as opposed to ‘we are winning.’

      Therefore, we have pro-Ukraine sources who want to show that Ukraine can win, but the pro-Russia sources (such as they are) are not trying to show that Russia is winning the war because to win a war you have to fight a war, that they claim they aren’t fighting.

    • mark rode says:

      +1 excellent post, Zvi’s answer is correct also. Also too much heroism in the media right now – heart-warming, but Ukrainians love their blocks-of-flats, too. As a mayor in East-Ukraine, I would surrender sooner than later. But yeah, “Russian invader: pashol, snaish kuda!”

    • Rotten Bananas says:

      I have been on Anatoly Karlin’s open threads and pro-Russian commenters are being honest about Russia being expansionistic, and they deem this to be a just war against the West, like Karlin himself who fully supports the invasion and wholesale annexation. He and a few commenters have been hinting at Russian nuclear escalation.

      I also suspect tactical nuke deployment by Russia can be used by NATO to escalate to the point of no return, since I have been very cynical about their commitment to peace after hearing the Russian impression of the alliance.

      • Basil Marte says:

        On the one hand, there’s no need for hinting, it was already in the news yesterday that the Russian strategic deterrent forces were put on an increased level of alert.

        On the other hand, my impression is that NATO/”the West” seems to be talking in a very confused manner relative to its game-theoretic position. Being a mutual defence organization, it is basically a glorified pinky-swear by participant countries to retaliate on each other’s behalf — and in the case of the nuclear members, this involves knowingly risking that a conventional strike of theirs will be mistaken for nuclear and correspondingly its target will (re-) retaliate with actual nukes, and so on. This only works if everyone — both NATO members concerned about getting invaded and potential invaders — treats the promise as credible.

        But what are the Exact Words that politicians, pundits, etc. in the West are claiming commitment to? Peace. Which IMO is not quite as bad as in https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/01/30/book-trilogy-review-remembrance-of-earths-past-the-three-body-problem/ since AFAICT the “logic” is that peace is good and war is bad, therefore we (who are peace) are good and Russia (who are war) are bad, i.e. AFAICT they consider the noises coming out of their mouths entirely consistent with going to war against bad monkey. But this is not exactly a crystal-clear commitment mechanism, and is awfully vulnerable to their populations deciding after a few news cycles that (rolls dice) saving the Madagascar brown-dotted butterflies from extinction is a bigger issue. (I’m being slightly too cynical here; Covid fatigue only ramped up on a timescale of several months, and industrial-war hooks more closely into caveman-war instincts.)

        Furthermore, many say words about expanding NATO or otherwise “protecting” Ukraine, which again doesn’t exactly sound like they grok the game theory. There’s a big “missing mood” here. It’s as if they learned that “credible commitment” is yay, thus they go around and say “credible commitment” a lot — and/or they think NATO works by magic.

  8. mark rode says:

    Germany closing all his nuclear power station before 2024? You asked for polls, I doubt they matter but checked anyway. 2 from 2021: one had a 70% majority for closing all (which was and is the plan). The other had 50 against 30 in favor of letting the last few run. – Context and wording matter. – For analogy look at military spending: 2021 a majority was against going all way up to 2%/GDP. And 3 days ago only a minority would have favored upgrading the spending by a sweeping-sounding 100 billion €. Now our chancellor has decided just that and whoops: 75% (vs. 15%; 10 undecided) say: Right! – :D “If the world changes, politics must change!” (green politician)
    – Even a lot of smart Germans are “no-nuclear-power”, very sorry to say. But then: Blackouts are anathema. ( I remember exactly 1. In 1977 or so in my town.) This stuff is as cockroaches: they may exist in old tales and US/Russia/reality-tv, but not here. – Habeck, the minister of economy, is GREEN. (And the top-guy in his party). So, if he says: “the numbers do not add up, we need the old plants to run a bit longer”, he will lead and we will follow. – Chance of a new plant before 2038: 0%. Chance of France building more and us buying the power: 85% (actually 100% if we need the power. Russian gas may relatively soon flow again.)

    • TheZvi says:

      Yep, I didn’t have exact numbers but I new that this was the view pre-invasion. The question to me is whether public opinion will change. And I will happily bet against your 0% any day! I agree it is very low, but things are changing rapidly – who would have expected doubled military spending in the first week, or many other decisions.

      • mark rode says:

        Do not get caught too quickly ;) a NEW plant before 2038 means: it started working by then, not just breaking-ground. – And the switched-off-stations put into service again would not count as “new” (I pray this will happen!). – Say “1 to 100”, and I send you the 100 now (paypal to your mail?), you send the 10000 to my kids for Xmas 2018?

        • mark rode says:

          2038 – my email: mkrode gmail

        • TheZvi says:

          I mean, that’s me giving you 100:1 odds instead of the other way around, so I will kindly decline. I’d put the chances of this as still small (e.g. definitely 10% here.

          I remember a few different blackouts here in NYC and in rural areas you lose power every so often even now. People really don’t like them but you learn to live with them. California’s been having such issues a lot and it’s surprising how much it doesn’t piss people off.

        • mark rode says:

          Oops, yes I got confused. So: you bet me 300$ it will happen – at say 5% – thus I pay you 6000$ if a newly built nuclear-fission-plant of at least 700 MW on German soil is delivering to the grid before 31.12.2038. ($ as on 31.12.2038/start of delivery what’s sooner) Deal? (sorry, me newbie) – And again, I am sure that pub. opinion as in “polls” will not be the big issue here. (some will go mad, though + the courts will be busy with NIMBYs – when I say “less than 1%” I mean it). And: I lived/taught 15+ years in Russia/Ukraine, so I am cool with blackouts + Kakerlaken/Tarakani/cucarachas. Other Germans are not. U fear what u don’t know.

      • danohu says:

        I recently saw a lovely analogy that German government policy is like a Roomba — it keeps going in a straight line until it hits a wall, then bounces off in a semi-random direction. We’ve absolutely hit a wall now and all the actors are throwing away old policies. That includes the Green leadership considering keeping the existing plants open. A month from now it’ll all have settled down into a new normal — but until then, I’d find it hard to give a 0% probability to anything.

  9. thechaostician says:

    “Will Russia be removed from the UN Security Council by 2024? 2%. No. I put in 1%. This is a Can’t Happen. The UN has no procedure for doing this, if one of the big five goes rogue there is essentially nothing it can do.”

    I agree that this is extremely unlikely, but I don’t think that this is a Can’t Happen.

    There is an example of something similar happening: in 1971, China’s seat on the UN security council was transferred from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China, following a 2/3 vote in the UN General Assembly about who legitimately represented China (Resolution 2758).

    The seat on the Security Council in question originally was assigned to the Soviet Union. It might be possible for a 2/3 vote in the UN to decide that the Ukraine is the correct heir to the Soviet Union, instead of the Russian Federation.

    There are continual rumblings about UN Security Council Reforms by the G4 nations (India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany). There were discussions about this in September 2005, which failed because people couldn’t agree, not because reforming the security council is inherently impossible.

    This doesn’t mean that I would BUY this to 5%. It’s still incredibly unlikely and would probably require support from China (and a bunch of other countries). I would probably HOLD, based on ignorance about how China responds. 1% also seems like a reasonable estimate. But I wouldn’t push it down to 0.1% or lower because it Can’t Happen.

    ———————-

    I would also want a question about hyperinflation in Russia.

    If the goal of sanctions is to collapse the Russian economy, hyperinflation is a likely mechanism for that to happen. Foreigners can freeze (and have frozen) the assets of the Russian central bank and trigger a run on the ruble. Russian military spending continues to increase to replace assets lost in Ukraine, requiring extracting more money from a shrinking economy. Eventually, they can’t keep squeezing the economy and the central bank runs out of foreign currency reserves, so the value of the ruble collapses.

    • Rotten Bananas says:

      It might be possible for a 2/3 vote in the UN to decide that the Ukraine is the correct heir to the Soviet Union
      It Can’t Happen since Soviet Ukraine had a seat at the UN and hence is out of the game of claiming to be the successor of the Soviet Union’s seat at the UN. It’s something that fails common sense, which will permanently supercharge anti-UN sentiments and suspicions that UN and other international institutions are under undue American influence (the holders of those incidentally have more favorable geopolitical views of Russia). In the case of ROC -> PRC, both had a claim to be the legitimate government of China. (The odds of China supporting the move is 1%)

      It’s possible that the representatives to UN of a state is not in effective control of any significant portion of the territory, like the past examples of ROC & Khmer Rouge (which only lost its seat in 1993) show. But this requires an alternative government to Putin that actively contests the legitimacy of Putin’s hold on power, which is also quite unlikely, but likelier than your scenario.

      ——

      About hyperinflation, the fall in FX value of the Ruble resembles that of Turkish Lira, strongly inflationary but ultimately survivable for the regime, and it was experienced once in 2014.

      If you listen to libertarians and go by the Austrian definition of inflation, USD and EUR have been hyperinflating, but so far it has not created any economic instability independent of wider political/social upheavals. According to them, USD & EUR will be rapidly abandoned as people switch to harder currencies while creating alternate institutions to the “statist” order, and its value will fall off a cliff. Russia might be willing to stabilize the value of its currency with precious metal backing, again a hard money dream of libertarians.

  10. George H. says:

    Zvi, this is semi-off topic. With covid being less important, could you do a nuclear energy post?
    I’d like to comment/ talk about that.

  11. Justinian says:

    I think the fall of Kiev is too low. The fact that the Russian convoy can be spread out along 40 miles of road, nearly bumper to bumper, to the point where any interested person with an internet connection can figure out its exact current location, and Ukraine is STILL powerless to counter attack says all we need to know about the balance of power here. Russia can afford be sloppy and kind of lethargic, because it’s overwhelmingly stronger than Ukraine.

  12. knobibrot says:

    I’d qualify the question “will 10 or more nuclear weapons explode anywhere in the world by date” to “and kill people” because we want to distinguish between nuclear tests and nuclear attacks.

    • danohu says:

      Markets on tests are also useful, though, as they are a measure of nuclear escalation that more easily gets out of the 1% likelihood range, unlike actual military use.

  13. magic9mushroom says:

    >No. I put in 1%. This is a Can’t Happen. The UN has no procedure for doing this, if one of the big five goes rogue there is essentially nothing it can do.

    I feel I should note for the record that this impotence is an intended feature rather than a bug; it prevents the UN from being used to start WWIII.

    I remember a history book I read as a kid which said that the Soviet Union’s “nyet” stopped the UN from doing its job. That history book is a filthy piece of propaganda*. If the UN had been able to override the Soviet veto, you would have had UN intervention in things that were red lines for the USSR and hey look are those mushroom clouds?

    *It had a few other things that make me think this of it; it’s not just this bit.

Leave a comment