General rules
This is a free response market. Users may submit answers that are pertinent to the question posed in the market title. These answers, once submitted, will become my responsibility to resolve appropriately. As new answers are added, I may clarify their resolution criteria in the description if necessary.
I may edit submitted answers for the sake of clarity (e.g. to fix spelling errors). I will not, however, meaningfully change the wording of any answer that has already been traded on. I reserve the right to resolve duplicate, inappropriate and overly ambiguous answers to N/A.
I may bet in this market, although I will refrain from investing heavily in answers when I foresee that their resolution may be contentious.
Answers are unlinked and any number of them may resolve YES.
Information specific to each answer
"He will be target of an assassination attempt" and "He will be the target of a coup attempt"
There will need to be compelling evidence for a YES resolution on each of these answers. Unfounded claims will not be sufficient.
"He will not be the President of Ukraine"
This answer will resolve YES if Zelensky ceases to be the President of Ukraine at any point in 2024, including in the event of his death. It will resolve NO if he remains President throughout the year.
1,000
3.00@ZacParker I'd argue this has already been met with his recent visit to the US and the venues he chose to patronize
@MattP Look, I agree that we can probably infer his preference from his recent actions and remarks, but unless I've missed something, I don't believe there has been anything explicit enough to justify a Yes resolution, let alone an immediate one
If there is anything in particular that you believe warrants a Yes resolution, please feel free to bring it to my attention
@a_l_e_x the republican party leadership is definitely reading an explicit preference into his recent visit to an ammunition plant in the most important swing state, with only Democratic lawmakers invited: https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-johnson-ambassador-ukraine-biden-harris-trump-d81b0a055d99cfd4804b3f2c00915d09
@MattP okay, I haven't missed anything then. Here are my thoughts:
The "too radical" comment holds some weight, but it is not, by itself, conclusive. There are two reasons for this.
He was talking about a VP candidate and not the guy at the top of the ticket. If he were to criticise Trump in the same way OR suggest that Vance's position is so unacceptable that it can't be overlooked no matter how satisfied he is with Trump, it would hold a lot more weight.
A preference is more than just a negative opinion of one option. If I say that I dislike oranges, it would be hasty to assume that I prefer apples without more information.
The Pennsylvania visit is more complex. I don't give much weight to how Republicans interpreted it, but the fact that only Democratic officials were invited does seem like a hallmark of a campaign event.
If Zelensky was aware beforehand that only Democratic officials would be present, it could be read as an endorsement of those particular officials who are running for re-election. But could it be read as an endorsement of the whole party? Or an endorsement of a presidential candidate who was not present at the event? Now we are drawing a longer bow.
As I write this, Trump has just met with Zelensky at Trump Tower. I won't read too much into this development, but it could be argued that it countervails the Pennsylvania incident and demonstrates that Vance's views are, at the very least, not an insurmountable problem in Zelensky's eyes.
As I suggested in my previous comment, the evidence up to that point did lean toward the notion that Zelensky would prefer Harris/Walz. But for the reasons outlined above, I don't think it's enough to say that he has seriously expressed a preference.
I am also quite certain that it would be premature to resolve this now based on only an inference. What if Zelensky makes a statement tomorrow along the lines of "I am confident that Ukraine can continue to rely on the support of the US regardless of the outcome in November"? That would surely outweigh all evidence to the contrary.
@a_l_e_x one other bit of evidence - he did criticize Trump in that same interview in which he criticized Vance - "My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how."
May not be enough to tip the scales for you, but I'm not aware of him making any similarly critical statements about Harris. Will definitely be curious to see what he says after meeting with Trump.
@a_l_e_x though to be fair, he did backpedal fairly quickly after that and say some positive things about Trump - so yeah, staying away from expressing an open preference. Here's the full interview so I can stop posting random out of context snippets.
@BrunoJ I think this should resolve YES because he visited DC in July 2024? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_227474.htm
@a_l_e_x Resolves YES
On 19 July 2024, Zelensky visited the UK and attended Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street.
Sources: BBC | New York Times
@a_l_e_x This can resolve YES
As I clarified in the description:
"He will be target of an assassination attempt" and "He will be the target of a coup attempt"
There will need to be compelling evidence for a YES resolution on each of these answers. Unfounded claims will not be sufficient.
Now, to take a paragraph from the Independent article you've cited:
Without providing evidence, they wrote: “The enemy was actively developing plans to eliminate President Volodymyr Zelensky.
For now, I cannot possibly determine that there is 'compelling evidence' if this is merely a claim accompanied by (reportedly) no evidence. If evidence of an assassination attempt does emerge, I will, of course, consider it.
The Independent article alludes to the fact that Ukrainian authorities claim to have thwarted assassination attempts on Zelensky rather frequently, which is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the clarification. If such claims (sans evidence) were sufficient to resolve this answer to YES, I suspect it would have been at >90% probability all along as the SBU seems to reliably make this claim at least once a year... and for all I know, it may well be true each time, but for the purpose of this market, compelling evidence = YES, significant doubt = N/A, no evidence = NO.
Sorry for the long-winded party-pooping post. I'm off to bed now, but I'll see where this is at when I wake up – perhaps there will be new developments. Regardless, thank you for bringing the news to my attention.