Trader consensus prices a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine by June 30 at just 5.5% likelihood, driven by stalled bilateral talks under the Trump administration, which has conditioned offers—such as a 15-year pact—on Kyiv ceding Donbas territory for a Russia peace deal. No formal, legally binding defense commitment against future aggression has materialized, despite Zelensky's January claim of a ready text and vague April strengthening pledges. In the past 30 days, developments include declining Ukrainian trust in U.S. support (polls down to 27%), continued arms sales like $373 million in JDAM kits, and a May drone manufacturing memo—none qualifying as the required treaty. With six weeks left, diplomatic breakthroughs remain unlikely absent major concessions.
Ringkasan eksperimental yang dihasilkan AI dengan referensi data Polymarket. Ini bukan saran trading dan tidak berperan dalam bagaimana pasar ini diselesaikan. · DiperbaruiU.S. agrees to give Ukraine security guarantee by June 30?
U.S. agrees to give Ukraine security guarantee by June 30?
$146,920 Vol.
$146,920 Vol.
Dec 31, 2026
$146,920 Vol.
$146,920 Vol.
Dec 31, 2026
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024 US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements which are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.Trader consensus prices a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine by June 30 at just 5.5% likelihood, driven by stalled bilateral talks under the Trump administration, which has conditioned offers—such as a 15-year pact—on Kyiv ceding Donbas territory for a Russia peace deal. No formal, legally binding defense commitment against future aggression has materialized, despite Zelensky's January claim of a ready text and vague April strengthening pledges. In the past 30 days, developments include declining Ukrainian trust in U.S. support (polls down to 27%), continued arms sales like $373 million in JDAM kits, and a May drone manufacturing memo—none qualifying as the required treaty. With six weeks left, diplomatic breakthroughs remain unlikely absent major concessions.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024 US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements which are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024 US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements which are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Pasar Dibuka: Dec 28, 2025, 6:02 PM ET
Volume
$146,920Tanggal Berakhir
Jun 30, 2026Pasar Dibuka
Dec 28, 2025, 6:02 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024 US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements which are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.Trader consensus prices a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine by June 30 at just 5.5% likelihood, driven by stalled bilateral talks under the Trump administration, which has conditioned offers—such as a 15-year pact—on Kyiv ceding Donbas territory for a Russia peace deal. No formal, legally binding defense commitment against future aggression has materialized, despite Zelensky's January claim of a ready text and vague April strengthening pledges. In the past 30 days, developments include declining Ukrainian trust in U.S. support (polls down to 27%), continued arms sales like $373 million in JDAM kits, and a May drone manufacturing memo—none qualifying as the required treaty. With six weeks left, diplomatic breakthroughs remain unlikely absent major concessions.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States formally commits to giving Ukraine a security guarantee, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed deal between the Trump administration and the Government of Ukraine which creates a binding obligation for the United States to defend or directly intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024 US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements which are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
A qualifying “security guarantee” requires language that is equivalent in character to a NATO Article 5–style mutual defense commitment: the United States must commit to responding militarily if Ukraine is attacked, or otherwise guarantee Ukraine’s defense through binding defense obligations. Examples of qualifying language include commitments modeled on the US treaties with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or NATO's Article 5 instrument, which obligates the United States to “act to meet the common danger” through military force if an ally is attacked. Cooperative frameworks, capacity-building measures, consultative mechanisms, or nonbinding pledges will not qualify.
Examples of non-qualifying arrangements include the June 13, 2024 US–Ukraine bilateral security agreement, the Taiwan Relations Act, or G7/EU “security arrangements” that provide support or consultation but stop short of binding defense guarantees.
A qualifying agreement must be jointly announced and finalized, and take the form of a treaty, executive agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint declaration, or equivalent written instrument. Announcements which are statements of intent, contingent, exploratory, or otherwise not indicative of a formalized policy will not count.
The primary resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Volume
$146,920Tanggal Berakhir
Dec 31, 2026Pasar Dibuka
Dec 28, 2025, 6:02 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...Trader consensus prices a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine by June 30 at just 5.5% likelihood, driven by stalled bilateral talks under the Trump administration, which has conditioned offers—such as a 15-year pact—on Kyiv ceding Donbas territory for a Russia peace deal. No formal, legally binding defense commitment against future aggression has materialized, despite Zelensky's January claim of a ready text and vague April strengthening pledges. In the past 30 days, developments include declining Ukrainian trust in U.S. support (polls down to 27%), continued arms sales like $373 million in JDAM kits, and a May drone manufacturing memo—none qualifying as the required treaty. With six weeks left, diplomatic breakthroughs remain unlikely absent major concessions.
Ringkasan eksperimental yang dihasilkan AI dengan referensi data Polymarket. Ini bukan saran trading dan tidak berperan dalam bagaimana pasar ini diselesaikan. · Diperbarui
Hati-hati dengan link eksternal.
Hati-hati dengan link eksternal.
Pertanyaan yang Sering Diajukan