Ongoing diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 meetings in Paris among the U.S., European partners, and Ukraine, have reaffirmed support for politically and legally binding security guarantees tied to any future ceasefire, yet no finalized bilateral agreement has emerged. Territorial disputes remain the central obstacle, with Russian demands exceeding current front lines and Ukrainian resistance to concessions blocking progress in U.S.-mediated talks involving envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Recent U.S. arms sales and energy de-escalation proposals signal continued engagement, but formal commitments require congressional ratification and alignment on postwar arrangements that have not advanced to completion. Upcoming leader-level discussions in New York offer potential catalysts, though the absence of breakthroughs since earlier 2026 signals sustains trader expectations against an agreement by year-end.
Polymarketデータを参照したAI生成の実験的な要約。これは取引アドバイスではなく、このマーケットの解決方法には一切関係ありません。 · 更新日6% 確率
$38,727 Vol.
$38,727 Vol.
2026/12/31
6% 確率
$38,727 Vol.
$38,727 Vol.
2026/12/31
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 December 31, 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 that 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.Ongoing diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 meetings in Paris among the U.S., European partners, and Ukraine, have reaffirmed support for politically and legally binding security guarantees tied to any future ceasefire, yet no finalized bilateral agreement has emerged. Territorial disputes remain the central obstacle, with Russian demands exceeding current front lines and Ukrainian resistance to concessions blocking progress in U.S.-mediated talks involving envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Recent U.S. arms sales and energy de-escalation proposals signal continued engagement, but formal commitments require congressional ratification and alignment on postwar arrangements that have not advanced to completion. Upcoming leader-level discussions in New York offer potential catalysts, though the absence of breakthroughs since earlier 2026 signals sustains trader expectations against an agreement by year-end.
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 December 31, 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 that 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 that 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.
マーケット開始日： May 28, 2026, 3:39 PM ET
音量
$38,727終了日
2027/01/01マーケット開始日
May 28, 2026, 3:39 PM ETリゾルバー
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 December 31, 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 that 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.Ongoing diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 meetings in Paris among the U.S., European partners, and Ukraine, have reaffirmed support for politically and legally binding security guarantees tied to any future ceasefire, yet no finalized bilateral agreement has emerged. Territorial disputes remain the central obstacle, with Russian demands exceeding current front lines and Ukrainian resistance to concessions blocking progress in U.S.-mediated talks involving envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Recent U.S. arms sales and energy de-escalation proposals signal continued engagement, but formal commitments require congressional ratification and alignment on postwar arrangements that have not advanced to completion. Upcoming leader-level discussions in New York offer potential catalysts, though the absence of breakthroughs since earlier 2026 signals sustains trader expectations against an agreement by year-end.
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 December 31, 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 that 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 that 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.
音量
$38,727終了日
2027/01/01マーケット開始日
May 28, 2026, 3:39 PM ETリゾルバー
0x65070BE91...Ongoing diplomatic efforts, including September 2026 meetings in Paris among the U.S., European partners, and Ukraine, have reaffirmed support for politically and legally binding security guarantees tied to any future ceasefire, yet no finalized bilateral agreement has emerged. Territorial disputes remain the central obstacle, with Russian demands exceeding current front lines and Ukrainian resistance to concessions blocking progress in U.S.-mediated talks involving envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Recent U.S. arms sales and energy de-escalation proposals signal continued engagement, but formal commitments require congressional ratification and alignment on postwar arrangements that have not advanced to completion. Upcoming leader-level discussions in New York offer potential catalysts, though the absence of breakthroughs since earlier 2026 signals sustains trader expectations against an agreement by year-end.
Polymarketデータを参照したAI生成の実験的な要約。これは取引アドバイスではなく、このマーケットの解決方法には一切関係ありません。 · 更新日
外部リンクに注意してください。
外部リンクに注意してください。
よくある質問