If Russia invades Ukraine (more)...

[Sandydragon]

The interesting thing is how light the casualties are, or are at least claimed to be. I’m wondering if the Ukrainians are deciding to go for the maximum benefit of being the victim in international relations or are waiting for the Russians to start extending their supply lines before countering.

Just read the BBC latest and it could be that Ukrainian forces were keeping well back from the border. Fighting does appear to be heavier than it was previously.

[Banquo]

The interesting thing is how light the casualties are, or are at least claimed to be. I’m wondering if the Ukrainians are deciding to go for the maximum benefit of being the victim in international relations or are waiting for the Russians to start extending their supply lines before countering.

Just read the BBC latest and it could be that Ukrainian forces were keeping well back from the border. Fighting does appear to be heavier than it was previously.

From what I gather, if large numbers of Russians casualties start happening, that will cause Putin issues with his home audience; there are already some protests in Moscow, though suspect not a level that will Putin will deign to notice.

[Sandydragon]

The interesting thing is how light the casualties are, or are at least claimed to be. I’m wondering if the Ukrainians are deciding to go for the maximum benefit of being the victim in international relations or are waiting for the Russians to start extending their supply lines before countering.

Just read the BBC latest and it could be that Ukrainian forces were keeping well back from the border. Fighting does appear to be heavier than it was previously.

From what I gather, if large numbers of Russians casualties start happening, that will cause Putin issues with his home audience; there are already some protests in Moscow, though suspect not a level that will Putin will deign to notice.

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

[Banquo]

The interesting thing is how light the casualties are, or are at least claimed to be. I’m wondering if the Ukrainians are deciding to go for the maximum benefit of being the victim in international relations or are waiting for the Russians to start extending their supply lines before countering.

Just read the BBC latest and it could be that Ukrainian forces were keeping well back from the border. Fighting does appear to be heavier than it was previously.

From what I gather, if large numbers of Russians casualties start happening, that will cause Putin issues with his home audience; there are already some protests in Moscow, though suspect not a level that will Putin will deign to notice.

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

[Puja]

From what I gather, if large numbers of Russians casualties start happening, that will cause Putin issues with his home audience; there are already some protests in Moscow, though suspect not a level that will Putin will deign to notice.

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

With the pace of mechanised warfare, the entire thing might be over and done with before any telegrams are sent, let alone bodies.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

From what I gather, if large numbers of Russians casualties start happening, that will cause Putin issues with his home audience; there are already some protests in Moscow, though suspect not a level that will Putin will deign to notice.

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

I agree that individual families will be hit hard. I’m more getting at the number of families that need to get bad news for it to trigger something. Much of the Russian population seems to be fairly supportive or otherwise compliant and protests seem minimal. I’m not sure what it would need for that to change, possibly another Afghanistan situation but whether Ukraine could sustain that level of guerrilla activity is another matter.

[Banquo]

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

I agree that individual families will be hit hard. I’m more getting at the number of families that need to get bad news for it to trigger something. Much of the Russian population seems to be fairly supportive or otherwise compliant and protests seem minimal. I’m not sure what it would need for that to change, possibly another Afghanistan situation but whether Ukraine could sustain that level of guerrilla activity is another matter.

So far, the impression is that the Ukranian resistance is pretty minimal- I've no idea what the size of their armed forces is tbh.

[Banquo]

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

With the pace of mechanised warfare, the entire thing might be over and done with before any telegrams are sent, let alone bodies.

Puja

Does seem to be happening at pace.

[Sandydragon]

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

I agree that individual families will be hit hard. I’m more getting at the number of families that need to get bad news for it to trigger something. Much of the Russian population seems to be fairly supportive or otherwise compliant and protests seem minimal. I’m not sure what it would need for that to change, possibly another Afghanistan situation but whether Ukraine could sustain that level of guerrilla activity is another matter.

So far, the impression is that the Ukranian resistance is pretty minimal- I've no idea what the size of their armed forces is tbh.

They have reasonable numbers compared to what Russia has deployed along the border, but having worked with a few Ukrainians a few years ago I wasn't bowled over by their efficiency. That said, I've no doubt that they will fight as bravely as they can when ordered to. The BBC reporting does seem to suggest heavier fighting today so that might change

[Banquo]

I agree that individual families will be hit hard. I’m more getting at the number of families that need to get bad news for it to trigger something. Much of the Russian population seems to be fairly supportive or otherwise compliant and protests seem minimal. I’m not sure what it would need for that to change, possibly another Afghanistan situation but whether Ukraine could sustain that level of guerrilla activity is another matter.

So far, the impression is that the Ukranian resistance is pretty minimal- I've no idea what the size of their armed forces is tbh.

They have reasonable numbers compared to what Russia has deployed along the border, but having worked with a few Ukrainians a few years ago I wasn't bowled over by their efficiency. That said, I've no doubt that they will fight as bravely as they can when ordered to. The BBC reporting does seem to suggest heavier fighting today so that might change

So sad watching the coverage . Horrendous clip of a tank swerving to run over a civilian car minding its own business- guy somehow got out unscathed. I really wish 'we' could physically help militarily, but that just does not seem possible.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I agree with David Lammy in that this invasion is 'an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-ukraine

I just wish he'd had the same view of unprovoked invasions in violation of international law in 2003 when he voted to invade Iraq with his New Labour buddies and most of the Tory party.

Another hypocrite with no apparent memory or shame is Boris Johnson, who also voted to declare war on Iraq.

[Puja]

I agree with David Lammy in that this invasion is 'an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-ukraine

I just wish he'd had the same view of unprovoked invasions in violation of international law in 2003 when he voted to invade Iraq with his New Labour buddies and most of the Tory party.

Another hypocrite with no apparent memory or shame is Boris Johnson, who also voted to declare war on Iraq.

While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

[Banquo]

I agree with David Lammy in that this invasion is 'an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-ukraine

I just wish he'd had the same view of unprovoked invasions in violation of international law in 2003 when he voted to invade Iraq with his New Labour buddies and most of the Tory party.

Another hypocrite with no apparent memory or shame is Boris Johnson, who also voted to declare war on Iraq.

While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

Well said.

[Zhivago]

From what I gather, if large numbers of Russians casualties start happening, that will cause Putin issues with his home audience; there are already some protests in Moscow, though suspect not a level that will Putin will deign to notice.

From my understanding much of the population will only know what Putin tells them via state tv. It would take catastrophically high casualties I think for the wider population to really notice

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

They won't be coming home in coffins. The Russians have mobile crematoriums.

[Zhivago]

I think the 'russian mothers' will notice when their children come home in coffins, but yes, hence 'large numbers of Russian casualties.

I agree that individual families will be hit hard. I’m more getting at the number of families that need to get bad news for it to trigger something. Much of the Russian population seems to be fairly supportive or otherwise compliant and protests seem minimal. I’m not sure what it would need for that to change, possibly another Afghanistan situation but whether Ukraine could sustain that level of guerrilla activity is another matter.

So far, the impression is that the Ukranian resistance is pretty minimal- I've no idea what the size of their armed forces is tbh.

Are you kidding? The reality is you don't defend a blitzkrieg at the border, doing so would lead to getting encircled. From what I have read, the resistance has been strong with many Russian casualties. 500 yesterday and more than 1000 today. That is not a minimal resistance.

Ukraine has the second largest army in Europe after Russia. This is like watching the Red Army attacking the Red Army.

For comparison - in the entire Iraq war the UK lost 179 military personnel.

[Zhivago]

I don't think a madman would be able to engineer his position of de facto dictator and hold it for so long. Not saying the invasion is sensible in any way of course but starting Armageddon would be something else.

We could get there by increments though.

lets say psychopath then? The invasion looks like madness to your average Joe, if not to the students of geopolitics- who seem to be aligned with the Donald

Not sure this is smart in the long run, so definitely not agreeing with the Donald . But I think Putin has calculated that he can get away with this one without catastrophic loss.

Did we watch the same speech(s)? This is not a calculating Putin. This is an angry deluded Putin.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I agree with David Lammy in that this invasion is 'an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-ukraine

I just wish he'd had the same view of unprovoked invasions in violation of international law in 2003 when he voted to invade Iraq with his New Labour buddies and most of the Tory party.

Another hypocrite with no apparent memory or shame is Boris Johnson, who also voted to declare war on Iraq.

While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

False equivalence? Since no two events in history are identical you could claim that of any comparison. We agree that each is 'an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law'. Both are illegal invasions. The aggressors are both overwhelmingly more powerful than the victim. Regime change and the installation of a compliant government is a key goal. Cities are being rocked by explosions. Innocent civilians are dying. They are both wars of aggression and therefore war crimes.

I worry that you see some real distinction between the two. Yes, Russia borders on Ukraine. The USA and UK do not border on Iraq, so the resulting vassal state was not contiguous with either. Is that really a key distinction? Does that make one war crime worse than the other?

My point is not to make light of the actions. It's to make clear that the horror being visited on Ukraine is very much like that we inflicted on Iraq. And we should not forget it, nor should those responsible be able to hide the crimes they themselves committed. This is uncomfortable for some, because we don't like to think we can be as bad as others. But, clearly, we can. Accepting this makes it less likely to happen in future (although prosecution for war crimes would be much more effective).

[Which Tyler]

Are you kidding? The reality is you don't defend a blitzkrieg at the border, doing so would lead to getting encircled. From what I have read, the resistance has been strong with many Russian casualties. 500 yesterday and more than 1000 today. That is not a minimal resistance.

Especially when you're massively outgunned; the blitzkrieg is taking place on the Steppes; but you massively outnumber the enemy.

As for numbers, 190k Russians Vs 200k Ukrainians is the figures being talked about for the last week or so, but then add "every Ukrainian who wants one" with a Kalashnikov and/or petrol bomb.

Retreat to the cities, and bleed them, is surely the best tactic for the Ukrainians, only stand and fight when you've got a concentration of forces and/or easily defensible positions.

I should note though, that my military training is limited to several hours playing Total War

[Zhivago]

I agree with David Lammy in that this invasion is 'an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-ukraine

I just wish he'd had the same view of unprovoked invasions in violation of international law in 2003 when he voted to invade Iraq with his New Labour buddies and most of the Tory party.

Another hypocrite with no apparent memory or shame is Boris Johnson, who also voted to declare war on Iraq.

While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

False equivalence? Since no two events in history are identical you could claim that of any comparison. We agree that each is 'an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law'. Both are illegal invasions. The aggressors are both overwhelmingly more powerful than the victim. Regime change and the installation of a compliant government is a key goal. Cities are being rocked by explosions. Innocent civilians are dying. They are both wars of aggression and therefore war crimes.

I worry that you see some real distinction between the two. Yes, Russia borders on Ukraine. The USA and UK do not border on Iraq, so the resulting vassal state was not contiguous with either. Is that really a key distinction? Does that make one war crime worse than the other?

My point is not to make light of the actions. It's to make clear that the horror being visited on Ukraine is very much like that we inflicted on Iraq. And we should not forget it, nor should those responsible be able to hide the crimes they themselves committed. This is uncomfortable for some, because we don't like to think we can be as bad as others. But, clearly, we can. Accepting this makes it less likely to happen in future (although prosecution for war crimes would be much more effective).

Except Sadam was gassing the Kurds, and was a totalitarian ruler. Ukraine is a democratic state that simply wants to orientate towards Europe, and has committed no such crime.

[Zhivago]

Are you kidding? The reality is you don't defend a blitzkrieg at the border, doing so would lead to getting encircled. From what I have read, the resistance has been strong with many Russian casualties. 500 yesterday and more than 1000 today. That is not a minimal resistance.

Especially when you're massively outgunned; the blitzkrieg is taking place on the Steppes; but you massively outnumber the enemy.

As for numbers, 190k Russians Vs 200k Ukrainians is the figures being talked about for the last week or so, but then add "every Ukrainian who wants one" with a Kalashnikov and/or petrol bomb.

Retreat to the cities, and bleed them, is surely the best tactic for the Ukrainians, only stand and fight when you've got a concentration of forces and/or easily defensible positions.

I should note though, that my military training is limited to several hours playing Total War

The numbers are fairly even (if anything they are in Ukraine's favour when considering mobilization), the main difference is that Russia has superior air power.

History is the best example, conceding territory and retreating to redoubts before launching a counter offensive is how the Red Army defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

[Puja]

I agree with David Lammy in that this invasion is 'an unprovoked outrage and a heinous violation of international law':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-ukraine

I just wish he'd had the same view of unprovoked invasions in violation of international law in 2003 when he voted to invade Iraq with his New Labour buddies and most of the Tory party.

Another hypocrite with no apparent memory or shame is Boris Johnson, who also voted to declare war on Iraq.

While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

False equivalence? Since no two events in history are identical you could claim that of any comparison. We agree that each is 'an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law'. Both are illegal invasions. The aggressors are both overwhelmingly more powerful than the victim. Regime change and the installation of a compliant government is a key goal. Cities are being rocked by explosions. Innocent civilians are dying. They are both wars of aggression and therefore war crimes.

I worry that you see some real distinction between the two. Yes, Russia borders on Ukraine. The USA and UK do not border on Iraq, so the resulting vassal state was not contiguous with either. Is that really a key distinction? Does that make one war crime worse than the other?

My point is not to make light of the actions. It's to make clear that the horror being visited on Ukraine is very much like that we inflicted on Iraq. And we should not forget it, nor should those responsible be able to hide the crimes they themselves committed. This is uncomfortable for some, because we don't like to think we can be as bad as others. But, clearly, we can. Accepting this makes it less likely to happen in future (although prosecution for war crimes would be much more effective).

I do see a real distinction between the two. I would like to open this post by noting that I am not defending the invasion of Iraq - it is indefensible - but I am aware in that trying to note where I find the distinction it will sound like I am downplaying the gravity of our actions. I am not - we are discussing two types of bad, not a good and a bad.

Disclaimer done.

Invading Iraq removed a mass-murdering tyrant and a dictator and replaced him with a democratic government. Note - I am not saying this makes the invasion just or right, nor that this was the main motivation for it (nor that we did it in a particularly competent manner).

Russia invading Ukraine is seeking to depose a democratically elected government. More than that, it is looking to erase Ukraine as a separate state. It is a war to expand borders. Yes, I do think that is worse than what we did in Iraq.

Puja

[Puja]

Are you kidding? The reality is you don't defend a blitzkrieg at the border, doing so would lead to getting encircled. From what I have read, the resistance has been strong with many Russian casualties. 500 yesterday and more than 1000 today. That is not a minimal resistance.

Especially when you're massively outgunned; the blitzkrieg is taking place on the Steppes; but you massively outnumber the enemy.

As for numbers, 190k Russians Vs 200k Ukrainians is the figures being talked about for the last week or so, but then add "every Ukrainian who wants one" with a Kalashnikov and/or petrol bomb.

Retreat to the cities, and bleed them, is surely the best tactic for the Ukrainians, only stand and fight when you've got a concentration of forces and/or easily defensible positions.

I should note though, that my military training is limited to several hours playing Total War

I think the issue is that, if the Russians can take or get around Kiev, then the eastern half of the Ukranian army is then encircled and trapped. That happens and suddenly the odds tilt very heavily in the Russian's favour.

I'd like to take a moment to note how complicit Belarus are in this. They might not technically be warring on Ukraine but in allowing Russia to use their territory, they've properly fucked them. If the attack was solely coming from the east and south, it'd be an even fight - adding the whole of the Belarus/Ukraine border as an invasion path as well makes half the country indefensible.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Are you kidding? The reality is you don't defend a blitzkrieg at the border, doing so would lead to getting encircled. From what I have read, the resistance has been strong with many Russian casualties. 500 yesterday and more than 1000 today. That is not a minimal resistance.

Especially when you're massively outgunned; the blitzkrieg is taking place on the Steppes; but you massively outnumber the enemy.

As for numbers, 190k Russians Vs 200k Ukrainians is the figures being talked about for the last week or so, but then add "every Ukrainian who wants one" with a Kalashnikov and/or petrol bomb.

Retreat to the cities, and bleed them, is surely the best tactic for the Ukrainians, only stand and fight when you've got a concentration of forces and/or easily defensible positions.

I should note though, that my military training is limited to several hours playing Total War

Letting the enemy advance until he has some extended supply lines isn’t a bad idea. But I would have still expected some casualties from screening forces or as a result of air raids or the fighting at the airport. But the casualty levels are much higher today which suggests that the Ukrainians really kept away from the border in any kind of force. It does look like they are going to defend major cities which will result in very high casualties for both sides.

[Sandydragon]

While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

False equivalence? Since no two events in history are identical you could claim that of any comparison. We agree that each is 'an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law'. Both are illegal invasions. The aggressors are both overwhelmingly more powerful than the victim. Regime change and the installation of a compliant government is a key goal. Cities are being rocked by explosions. Innocent civilians are dying. They are both wars of aggression and therefore war crimes.

I worry that you see some real distinction between the two. Yes, Russia borders on Ukraine. The USA and UK do not border on Iraq, so the resulting vassal state was not contiguous with either. Is that really a key distinction? Does that make one war crime worse than the other?

My point is not to make light of the actions. It's to make clear that the horror being visited on Ukraine is very much like that we inflicted on Iraq. And we should not forget it, nor should those responsible be able to hide the crimes they themselves committed. This is uncomfortable for some, because we don't like to think we can be as bad as others. But, clearly, we can. Accepting this makes it less likely to happen in future (although prosecution for war crimes would be much more effective).

I do see a real distinction between the two. I would like to open this post by noting that I am not defending the invasion of Iraq - it is indefensible - but I am aware in that trying to note where I find the distinction it will sound like I am downplaying the gravity of our actions. I am not - we are discussing two types of bad, not a good and a bad.

Disclaimer done.

Invading Iraq removed a mass-murdering tyrant and a dictator and replaced him with a democratic government. Note - I am not saying this makes the invasion just or right, nor that this was the main motivation for it (nor that we did it in a particularly competent manner).

Russia invading Ukraine is seeking to depose a democratically elected government. More than that, it is looking to erase Ukraine as a separate state. It is a war to expand borders. Yes, I do think that is worse than what we did in Iraq.

Puja

All good points. And when you consider that Putin has attempted to bully Estonia through massive cyber attacks, has picked a fight with Georgia and has also previously invaded parts of the Ukraine under the thinnest of pretexts, it’s clear that this is just a land grab. Of course claiming that Russian troops are going to de-Nazify the country is a very shallow attempt to justify the actions but it’s all part of a longer term strategy to rebuild Russian power and influence.

[Sandydragon]

Are you kidding? The reality is you don't defend a blitzkrieg at the border, doing so would lead to getting encircled. From what I have read, the resistance has been strong with many Russian casualties. 500 yesterday and more than 1000 today. That is not a minimal resistance.

Especially when you're massively outgunned; the blitzkrieg is taking place on the Steppes; but you massively outnumber the enemy.

As for numbers, 190k Russians Vs 200k Ukrainians is the figures being talked about for the last week or so, but then add "every Ukrainian who wants one" with a Kalashnikov and/or petrol bomb.

Retreat to the cities, and bleed them, is surely the best tactic for the Ukrainians, only stand and fight when you've got a concentration of forces and/or easily defensible positions.

I should note though, that my military training is limited to several hours playing Total War

The numbers are fairly even (if anything they are in Ukraine's favour when considering mobilization), the main difference is that Russia has superior air power.

History is the best example, conceding territory and retreating to redoubts before launching a counter offensive is how the Red Army defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

Erm, I’d suggest that the majority of Soviet troops were hammered in place before fresh forces were able to get to grips with the Germans. Millions surrounded and taken prisoner suggests they weren’t pulling back but we’re out thought and out fought before learning how to fight on the same terms, or at least effectively.

That said, not letting your best forces get destroyed on day one is always a good idea and cities are very defensible. Much will depend on how aggressive the Russians are when they come up against heavy fighting and how much care they take to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.