Review Question
Will Ukraine and Russia agree to a ceasefire before 1 October 2025?
| Answer | Initial Probability |
|---|---|
| Yes | 27% |
| No | 73% |
Author
Description
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, which began with Russia's invasion in February 2022, has seen various attempts at peace negotiations. Talks of a ceasefire have increased in recent weeks as senior U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia on 18 February 2025 to discuss improving ties and ending the war in Ukraine. However, Ukraine was not invited to these talks (CBS News, Reuters). Ukraine and the U.S. are also negotiating a deal that would give the U.S. rights to a percentage of Ukraine’s natural mineral resources, though the extent of the security guarantees that Ukraine would receive in return is yet to be determined (Bloomberg, New York Times).
Additionally, support for ending the war is growing among Ukrainians, with 32% now willing to concede territory in exchange for peace, up from 10% in 2022 according to Chatham House (Chatham House). A recent Gallup poll indicates that 52% of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, with more than half of those saying Ukraine "should be open to making some territorial concessions" (Gallup). Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine's military intelligence, believes a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia can be reached in 2025, but stressed the importance of NATO membership (Euromaidan Press).
Resolution Criteria:
This question will resolve as "Yes" if a ceasefire or other peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia is agreed to before 1 October 2025. The ceasefire must be confirmed by credible sources such as the United Nations, OSCE, or official statements from both Ukrainian and Russian governments. A temporary, localized, or partial ceasefire that does not cover the entire conflict zone will not be sufficient for a "Yes" resolution.
Starts
Mar 04, 2025 10:00PM UTC
Closes
Oct 01, 2025 04:00AM UTC
Topics
Geopolitical Security
Russia-Ukraine War
Tags
No tags selected
This question has been published for forecasting.
View Question »
View Question »
A good question and the correct answer seems uncertain.
As others have noted, the phrasing "a significant reduction or complete halt of military operations" is perhaps too unclear. I understand that requiring simply a "complete halt" would be unnecessarily strict. The way I see this going is that suppose a ceasefire is agreed upon, but one or both parties accuse the other of breaking the ceasefire. Does this mean the ceasefire failed? Or is these kinds of accusations expected and if military activity is noticeably reduced that's enough?
I don't think this unambiguity is a deal breaker for the question, though. As other's have suggested it might make sense to instead forecast whether a ceasefire will be agreed upon and started, but not requiring it to hold for 30 days. This is a possibility, but has it's own downsides.
I agree with some of the comments below about needing to be clearer about defining a ceasefire "holding". It seems extremely common for ceasefire deals to be followed by claims of breaches by one or both sides (most recently Israel-Hamas). The start of a ceasefire is fairly simple to definitively measure, as it is usually a symbolic event involving physically signing a document. The termination of a ceasefire has no such moment. Where would the threshold be?
It's potentially a blurred boundary which could make resolution ambiguous (did the ceasefire end on day 29 or day 31?).
It might be cleaner to focus on the signing of a ceasefire alone, rather than adding the complexity and ambiguity of it lasting for 30 days.
My question is how is "significant reduction or complete halt of military operations" measured? Perhaps a 10% reduction is enough? A half of more than 80% of its active military activities would count?
- What defines implemented? Does it mean simply to be in effect? Or is more sophisticated requirement needed? If the need only to be in effect, I think plainly stating so would be better, perhaps.
Main issue: The wording of the question is also quite unclear: when you say reach a ceasefire that starts before X date and lasts X number of days, are you saying a mere "reaching" prior to the effective dates would count? Based on the wording, such cases would constitute a fulfillment of the word "reach" even though it had not begun its effective duration.
@dante @FP
I agree with earlier comments on the difficulty of actually confirming a ceasefire lasts. One idea coming to my mind is changing it so that the ceasefire remaining in effect is based on if neither government makes a statement of the other breaking the agreement. If that doesn't appear in the 30 days it remains valid.
But also the idea of just declaration of ceasefire is good as well.