Trade Idea: Russia x Ukraine ceasefire before July?
Market: Russia x Ukraine ceasefire before July?
Trade: No
Current Odds: 57%
Return: 75%
Resolved by: End of June (3 months)
Position Size: Medium
Hey all and welcome back to The Poly. Before we get into this trade, I want to quickly mention that we have decided to create a fresh Polymarket account to follow the trades made on this newsletter. The goal of this is to make it easier to track our returns and see our entry and exit prices. You can track the account with this link. We also have a twitter account that you can find here.
Last Monday’s trade regarding Elon Musk’s net worth was unfortunately hit from left of field when the news came out about the Trump admin easing the tariff policy. It resulted in a massive rally across the board and resulted in a +10% rally for Tesla in one day. Nonetheless, we still have five trading days remaining and the position is still in contention to return a win. The Thursday trade made back any losses that may occur from the Musk trade plus additional profit, as we saw our ceasefire trade go from 31c to 100c within five days. If you followed our trades and positions sizes you would be up 50% on those two trades, and even if the Musk trade doesn’t go in our favour and goes to 0c, we would still have returned 40% on those two trades combined. If the Musk trades goes in our favour that turns into a +80% return. With that all being said, let’s jump into today’s trade.
Why a Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire Isn't Happening Anytime Soon
The chances of Ukraine and Russia sitting down for a comprehensive peace agreement in the next few months are slim to none. Despite occasional glimmers of hope—like the recent March 2025 agreement to pause attacks on energy infrastructure—the fundamental roadblocks remain stubbornly in place.
What's preventing progress? It comes down to three key issues:
Fundamentally Incompatible Demands: Both sides have drawn lines in the sand that the other simply isn't willing to cross. Ukraine continues to demand full territorial integrity, while Russia maintains claims on occupied territories.
Broken Trust: Previous partial agreements have been repeatedly violated, creating a toxic environment of distrust. Each side views potential negotiations as another arena for strategic positioning rather than genuine dialogue.
Strategic Calculations: Military leaders and political strategists on both sides seem more invested in maintaining pressure than finding a diplomatic off-ramp.
The limited truces we've seen—like the energy infrastructure agreement—are more like temporary pressure valves than genuine peace mechanisms. They demonstrate that some communication is possible, but they're nowhere near addressing the conflict's core tensions.
In the coming months, expect more of the same: localized agreements, tactical maneuvers, and continued strategic standoff. Real peace remains a distant prospect.
Geopolitical Conditions
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine remains fundamentally deadlocked by deeply incompatible territorial claims. At the heart of the dispute is Russia's unyielding demand for formal recognition of its territorial seizures, including Crimea and four partially occupied eastern provinces: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. President Vladimir Putin has been unambiguous about his conditions for peace, repeatedly stating that Ukraine must "officially cede sovereignty over these regions" and renounce its NATO aspirations. These demands stand in stark contradiction to Ukraine's constitutional commitment to preserving its territorial integrity. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently refused to legitimize Russia's annexations, creating an almost insurmountable diplomatic impasse.
The Kremlin's June 2024 ultimatum went even further, demanding not just territorial concessions but also the lifting of Western sanctions and guarantees preventing Ukrainian military modernization. In essence, Russia is seeking nothing short of Kyiv's complete capitulation—a scenario Ukraine has flatly rejected. Ukraine's counter-proposals reveal an equally uncompromising stance. The country is demanding full Russian withdrawal, the return of abducted children, NATO membership, and robust security guarantees. These demands are fundamentally incompatible with Moscow's strategic objectives. The promising 2022 draft peace treaty, which had nearly secured Ukrainian neutrality, ultimately collapsed due to Russia's unwillingness to withdraw from occupied territories.
Recent diplomatic efforts, including U.S.-backed proposals for a 30-day comprehensive ceasefire, have similarly failed to gain traction. Zelenskyy remains wary of any pause that might inadvertently freeze frontlines in Russia's favor, drawing painful parallels to the ineffective 2014 Minsk Agreements. The result is a conflict characterized more by its intractability than by any clear path to resolution.
Trust Deficits and Compliance Failures
The delicate fabric of diplomatic negotiations between Russia and Ukraine continues to unravel, with each attempted truce exposing deeper layers of mistrust. The March 2025 energy infrastructure agreement, initially conceived as a potential confidence-building measure, has quickly devolved into yet another arena of mutual recrimination.
Russia alleges Ukrainian attacks on power grids in Luhansk and gas facilities in Crimea, while Ukraine documents ongoing Russian drone strikes targeting civilian areas—all of which occurred during active negotiation periods. These incidents are far more than mere technical breaches; they represent a systemic erosion of diplomatic goodwill. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has acknowledged the opaque nature of these technical discussions, with both sides seemingly more interested in finding justifications for military escalation than in genuine reconciliation.
The shadow of previous failed negotiations looms large over current diplomatic efforts. The 2022 Istanbul talks, where Russia spectacularly reneged on withdrawal promises in the wake of the Bucha massacre, remain a fresh wound in Ukrainian collective memory. The Black Sea grain initiative's suspension in 2023, ostensibly over alleged Ukrainian "provocations," further reinforced the perception of Moscow's strategic duplicity. Ukrainian officials now approach Russian commitments with a profound skepticism that borders on resignation. Each ceasefire discussion is viewed not as a genuine peace overture, but as a tactical pause—a strategic breathing space for military repositioning. The recurring pattern of agreement, violation, and renewed conflict has transformed diplomatic engagement into something resembling a performative ritual, devoid of authentic potential for resolution.
Russia’s Strategic Use of Ceasefire Talks
In the intricate chess game of international diplomacy, Russia has refined a strategy that turns negotiations into a weapon of strategic delay. The Kremlin's negotiation tactics reveal a sophisticated approach to international pressure. By tying Black Sea security agreements to technical financial demands—such as reinstating the Russian Agricultural Bank's SWIFT access—Russia skillfully shifts the narrative. The message is clear: any diplomatic impasse is not of their making, but a result of Western intransigence.
European internal divisions provide additional leverage. Disagreements over energy sanctions and reconstruction funding create fissures that Moscow is all too happy to exploit. The result is a diplomatic landscape where prolonged talks become a strategic objective in themselves—a way to continue military operations while maintaining a veneer of diplomatic engagement. In essence, Russia has transformed negotiations from a path to resolution into a tool of strategic manipulation, carefully calibrated to maintain pressure, divide international support, and create space for continued military objectives.
Conclusion
The current market sentiment around a potential Ukraine-Russia ceasefire fundamentally misunderstands the conflict's deep-rooted complexities. While Polymarket estimates a 43% probability against a truce by July 2025, this figure dramatically overstates the likelihood of peace. A more realistic assessment places the probability closer to 10-15%, reflecting the structural barriers that continue to drive this conflict.
Three critical factors make a comprehensive resolution extremely unlikely. First, the vast chasm between Russia's maximalist territorial demands and Ukraine's non-negotiable sovereignty creates an almost insurmountable diplomatic impasse. Second, a history of repeatedly violated agreements has completely eroded trust, rendering any verification mechanisms essentially meaningless. Third, both nations currently possess strategic incentives to continue the conflict, particularly as military momentum remains fluid. Tactical pauses—like the March 2025 energy infrastructure truce—might suggest potential for conflict management, but they are more accurately understood as temporary pressure valves rather than genuine pathways to peace. The Kremlin's approach epitomizes this dynamic, using negotiations as a tool to extract concessions while maintaining battlefield flexibility. By linking Black Sea security discussions to technical financial demands like SWIFT access for its agricultural bank, Russia demonstrates its mastery of weaponized diplomacy.
Unless fundamental military dynamics force an absolute stalemate or external actors can broker truly enforceable compromises—both of which seem improbable in the current three-month horizon—this conflict will persist in its current state of managed escalation. Peace remains more of a theoretical construct than a practical possibility.
Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.
If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.
Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.