Russia–Ukraine Ceasefire Tracker

Every book on this page puts its deepest position on the leg the same book says will not happen.

The ceasefire ladder is the cleanest example. Russia x Ukraine ceasefire agreement by...? turned $36,715 in twenty-four hours. The August 31 rung—priced at 1.8%, eight days out—took $32,334 of it, 88% of the entire book. The December 31 rung at 22.5% took $3,791. The two 2027 rungs, at 41% and 56%, took nothing at all.

So the market's actual belief is that a ceasefire is more likely than not by mid-2027 and close to impossible this month. The money went entirely into the second half of that sentence.

The same shape repeats across the complex: a NATO-Russia military clash by August 31 at 4.3% outtrades the same ladder's December 31 leg at 25.5%, $19,302 to $18,285. Eight venue legs priced under 1% in the Trump-Putin meeting book outtrade the two answers that could actually happen. This is now the defining feature of the geopolitical books this catalog covers, and it is worth deciding whether it is retail lottery-ticket flow, maker inventory, or hedging against a headline.

The ceasefire ladder against Manifold's independent timeline. Polymarket's term structure reads 1.8% by August 31, 8.5% by October 31, 22.5% by December 31, 41% by March 2027, 56% by June 2027—a slow, orderly climb with no discontinuity anywhere, which is what a market with no information looks like. Manifold's play-money book is the only cross-exchange mirror listed and prices the same question independently.

Escalation is priced higher than settlement, and the territory book is the only contract on this page trading near a coin flip.

Russia capturing all of Kostyantynivka by December 31 sits at 51.5% on $32,305—more volume than the entire ceasefire ladder's non-August flow. Against it, a NATO-Russia military clash by December 31 at 25.5%, which is above the 22.5% the market gives a ceasefire agreement over the identical window. The market thinks NATO shooting at Russia by year end is more likely than Russia and Ukraine signing anything by year end.

Two meeting books, and both of them are mostly tails.

Trump-Putin: no meeting by December 31 at 58.5%, China at 39.5%—and those two real answers took $13,299 between them while eight venue legs priced between 0.2% and 0.9%—Russia, a Gulf country, Switzerland, Turkey, Belarus, Finland, Japan, Other—took $22,594. The tails outtrade the outcomes by better than 1.7 to 1. Zelenskyy-Putin is the same book at a smaller scale.

The two tenures. Putin out by year end and Zelenskyy out by year end at 8.5% on $21,190—the largest single binary on this page. Neither leadership book has moved materially since the spring, and neither is where the escalation risk is being expressed; that sits in the territory and NATO-clash ladders above.

• 88% of the ceasefire book on a 1.8% rung. $32,334 went into ceasefire by August 31 with eight days left, while the rungs the market actually believes in—March 2027 at 41%, June 2027 at 56%—took zero dollars. If you want one number that describes how geopolitical event contracts trade right now, that is it.
• Escalation prices above settlement. NATO-Russia clash by December 31 at 25.5% against a ceasefire agreement by December 31 at 22.5%. Same window, same conflict, and the market leans toward the war widening before it ends.
• Kostyantynivka at 51.5% is the one honest coin flip. The deepest territory contract listed, on a specific town, resolving by year end. Territory books are the only place in this complex where the pricing tracks something observable week to week.
• The venue tails outtrade the venues. Eight sub-1% legs took $22,594 in the Trump-Putin meeting book against $13,299 on no meeting at 58.5% and China at 39.5%. Watch whether a scheduled summit collapses that distribution the way the Alaska meeting did last year.
• What is not listed. No supported exchange carries a live Kalshi book on the ceasefire itself—the whole term structure is Polymarket, with Manifold as the only mirror and no real-money second opinion anywhere. That is a thinner cross-exchange picture than the Iran complex, and worth remembering before reading any single price as consensus.