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.
Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The creator has indicated that if new U.S. military aid to Ukraine is counted as part of the U.S. contribution to a joint fund established under the rare earths deal, this will satisfy the requirement that military aid is resumed in a manner connected to the deal.
If this condition is met, the market will resolve to YES.
Resolution will await confirmation that this mechanism (counting new aid as a contribution) is part of the implemented deal.
Update 2025-05-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The creator will prioritize finding a source that shows an explicit connection between provided U.S. military aid and the rare earths deal (e.g., demonstrating "the US provided X so Ukraine owes Y").
If no such explicit connection is confirmed by the resolution date, the creator will make a judgement call based on whether the military aid provided appears implicitly part of the deal.
1,000
3.00This should resolve to "Yes".
Ukraine – F-16 Training and Sustainment
The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Ukraine of F-16 Training and Sustainment and related equipment for an estimated cost of $310.5 million.
@vitamind this has nothing to do with the mineral deal. There's no reference to the deal in that page at all.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 that's fair but I am going off your own guidance here:
"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."
@Odoacre @TimothyJohnson5c16 also, let's not be naive here: We are not going to get a source which explicitly states US has provided X as part of the rare earths agreement - the agreement, as I understand it, it was designed so that would not be the case; it leaves the US with one foot out the door.
Moreover, this F-16 deal is not insignificant, it marks the first foreign military sale under Trump, and only the second (AFAIK) since the Russo-Ukrainian war started - so US companies are directly profiting from this (as opposed to indirectly via military aid that Biden sent using his PDA).
@TimothyJohnson5c16 can you please clarify the guidance you provided? It seems like we have moved from implicit support to explicit support...
the agreement, as I understand it, it was designed so that would not be the case; it leaves the US with one foot out the door.
That's my point. The agreement has been designed NOT to exchange the minerals for military support.
@vitamind I can't read the author's mind either, but he did say the resumption of aid needs to be connected, and some aid such as military intelligence had resumed before the deal was signed, so it's not immediately obvious this sale is a consequence of the deal. Afaik the deal is not even in effect yet, it needs to be ratified by the ukranian parliament.
@Odoacre Sorry for being unclear. There's been a lot of ambiguity about what was actually agreed, including several last-minute changes. So I'm hoping for a source that provides an explicit connection along the lines of "the US provided X so Ukraine owes Y".
If that doesn't happen, I'll have to make a judgement call on whether the military aid being provided is implicitly part of the deal. It seems likely to me that it is, but I'm not certain yet.
For supporters of Ukraine inside the American administration, the deal offers a glimpse at a mechanism for continued military assistance, albeit one that remains unspecified and improbable.
The hope remains that the deal could, eventually, bring real security guarantees or weapons
The Economist is pretty tenatative
@Dauur This sounds like it will probably be a YES resolution: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-trump-peace-ce025ba11929ceff0c90f94c25a47624.
Both sides are saying that part of the goal of the agreement is to support Ukraine in the war. There is also this in particular:
"According to Shmyhal, the latest version would establish an equal partnership between the two countries and last for 10 years. Financial contributions to a joint fund would be made in cash, and only new U.S. military aid would count toward the American share."
But I'm going to wait a few days to see if the actual agreement is released to make sure.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 everything I've read indicates its around 'building back' after the war, but nothing around security now directly here?
@Dauur Hmm, everything I've found says the opposite. For example:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/30/europe/ukraine-us-mineral-deal-intl/index.html
“The American side may also count new, I emphasize new, military aid to Ukraine as a contribution to this fund." I'll wait until it's clear whether that's happened, but I expect that it will, and when it does this will definitely be a YES.
"The U.S. and Ukraine are nearing a long-delayed deal granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s vast mineral resources, which has been intertwined with Trump’s peace push. Trump said Thursday: “We have a minerals deal.’' Ukraine’s economy minister said Friday that the two countries signed a memorandum of intent ahead of a possible fuller agreement later."
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-ukraine-russia-war-trump-a90e3e49c276b75ed2542f2f0422ddd6
The 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.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 It would be nice to update the description and @traders on whether or not military support needs to be an explicit part of the deal etc.