@ClayGraubard I think we should wait to resolve until we receive an announcement that the U.S. "has" cut at least one Russian bank out of the SWIFT system. I am hesitant to resolve now, as an announcement of intent is not an an announcement of completion and I am unsure when the second announcement will be issued. I think it would be reasonable to close the question now and wait for resolution. I will go ahead and close the question as of now.

@RyanBeck @kievalet I have extended the closing and resolution times/dates. The question will not resolve negatively if consensus is not reached before the set resolution time.

@Ab5A8bd20V @biome This question will resolve positively if the SC invokes 377. We have determined that it is more important to capture if the Article 377 was used, rather than which specific body formally invoked it.

@kievalet @billmo Good question. I originally conceived this question with the intent that it would seek to record or "count" the total number of people that emigrated at any point during the conflict, regardless of the choices they made after emigrating.

My take is that if someone emigrates but then repatriates it would still count toward the total value because they technically did emigrate out of Ukraine at some point due to the conflict, even if they eventually returned. What do others think?

@skadish3 I believe so, as the current government of Belarus has allowed Russian troops within the country. To trigger resolution, troops must enter explicitly against the permission of the current recognized government.

@AdamRen If the presidency is dissolved, and the nature of the political system in Russia is fundamentally altered in such a way as to allow this, then this question will resolve ambiguously. If Putin takes on any other role in the existing system besides that of President before 2023, then this question will negatively. Does that help clear up the confusion? I can add it to the resolution criteria.

@beala @Pablo Upon further consideration, we've decided that these outcomes should be distinct from each other, although the result in stopping trade may be the same in both cases. If Russia refuses to sell gas, it will not count toward positive resolution. Apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

@wobblybobby My interpretation is that there must be 100 troops within the city simultaneously. That being said, I think evidence for that number can be pieced together and validated from a variety of reports for each incursion. I find it very plausible to believe that the resolution was triggered on the incursion of February 27.

@wobblybobby I can alter the resolution criteria to look at if more than 50% of a city's raions are under Russian military control. Would that sufficiently alleviate the potential ambiguity in this case?

@kievalet As long as the intent of the resolution passed through veto-override in the USGA was the same/very similar, then the actual word does not need to be used. It will take some discretion to determine whether the intent is the same, but I believe that this should be relatively easy to ascertain. The new resolution should essentially not support any ongoing, or future, Russian involvement in Ukraine via Russian military presence within the country and place blame on Putin for any damages caused.

@isinlor @Jgalt There is an underlying idea behind these questions that we are working on behind the scenes for a new product in the future. I appreciate that it is very repetitive, which is why we are going to use only the questions for September initially. My apologies for the overload, it was an oversight on my part.

@RyanBeck Thanks for bringing up the need for clarification. For this question, we will exclude the separatist regions from the 30% population benchmark, as well as any previously annexed regions from the 2014 conflict. If Russian forces capture and hold an additional, previously non-separatist or non-annexed part of Ukraine that represents 30% of the total Ukrainian population, we will consider that as resolving the question. Does this clear up any confusion?

@traviswfisher @Sylvain I also looked through NASA's exoplanet archive and searched Google Scholar for any further publications and found nothing. I think it is safe to resolve ambiguously as there is no way to determine a positive or negative resolution.

@Kirstein314 No, it would need to be a direct, official statement from the U.S. government, military, or intelligence agencies. Remarks from individual politicians will not trigger resolution.

@kievalet Advance estimate to be released on July 29, 2021 according to the BEA. I have changed the closing and resolution dates to match that.

@kievalet @Rexracer63 As the resolution criteria specifically require resolution through the FCC database and nobody has found any microwave products through the site that function in a way to sterilize viruses, I concur that we resolve this question negatively.

@johnnycaffeine @isajun I think simultaneously under control was my original intent, I will rephrase to make that more clear.

@Jgalt Just looked more into general taxes and I think if there were a blanket tax that covered meat and dairy it might not be specific enough for a positive resolution. So, I think for a positive resolution it would need to be a tax specifically on animal products like dairy and meat.

The most recent news I can find here states that Burger King has revised their goal to end the use of gestation crates in Europe by 2030.

I agree with a negative resolution for this question.

Resolution criteria changed to 50% of the city's raions rather than population to better emulate maps that might show which areas are under Russian control and prevent ambiguity from population change.

See this comment from Will Russia Control Kyiv on June 1?