system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Russia is not likely to invade Ukraine with it's current posture

&#x200B;

|*Country Invaded*|*Total Committed Troops at Time of Invasion*|*Percentage of Total Military Personnel (Committed Troops / Total Available Personnel)*|*Land Area of Invaded Country (Sq Miles)*|*Troops per Sq Mile*|*Notes*|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Kuwait (1990)|88,000 (Iraq)|9%|6,880|12.79|Pushed out by Coalition troops during Desert Storm|
|Chechnya (1994)|23,800 (Russia, 1994)|2%|6,700|3.55|Failure|
|Chechnya (1999)|80,000 (Russia)|5%|6,700|11.94|Chechnya reintegrated into Russian Republic|
|Iraq (2003)|309,000 (Coalition Forces)|13% (US forces)|169,235|1.82|Saddam Hussein ousted, decade+ occupation of the country by coalition forces|
|Ethiopia (1935)|500,000(Italy)|16%|426,400|1.17|Italian Victory|
|Poland (1939)|825,000(Germany)|22%|150,470|5.48|Two Front Push with the Soviet Union, Warsaw falls|
|France (1944)|1,452,000 (Allies)|13% (US Forces)|246,368|5.89|Successful Invasion, Axis defeated in two front war.|
|Russia (1812)|612,000 (France)|Unclear|990,000 (Rough estimate from western Russian border to Ural Mountains)|0.61|Russian Victory, repelling Napoleon led France|
|Russia (1941)|3,800,000 (Germany)|52% (!)|990,000 (Rough estimate from western Russian border to Ural Mountains)|3.83|Failure to reach AA line and pushed back|
|Ukraine (2022)|175,000 (Russia)|19%|233,062|0.75|TBD|

I am not a military strategy scholar, but looking throughout the history of modern warfare, it's clear that the more troops you have, the better chances of your ability to invade a country. Obviously there are many factors that go into invasions, and in this day and age the use of robotic weaponry like drones takes away the need for actual troops. But if you want to invade and hold something, you can't do it remotely. Someone has to be there to maintain order. Which is why I am comparing land area vs troop size. You need to have people patrolling the country, looking in buildings and under bridges for partisans. Can't patrol there with drones and aircraft.

Based on the estimates provided by various news media, it is believed that there are 175,000 Russian troops amassed at the Ukrainian border. This amount to 19% of Russian forces. As far as I can tell, only Nazi Germany committed more of their troop pool to invasions than Russia would in the hypothetical invasion of Ukraine, but that was the Nazi Germany double-edged sword that worked out in the beginning but ended up leading to their downfall.

Based on this information, I believe the Ukrainian invasion from Russia is not imminent. That does not mean it can't happen in the future, but with the present troops at the border it doesn't seem likely. Unless Russia moves more troops or a nearby country assists with the Invasion, Ukraine will remain (further) unmolested.

I'm wholly interested in learning if my thought process is way off, so fire away!  


Edit: Δ awarded. An invasion encompassing everything east of the Dnieper seems likely.
gpt
Setting aside that you're looking at those troops stationed on the border as the only forces that will be involved in an invasion, this chart is making a point about whether or not the invasion will succeed not whether or not it will happen. 

If anything all of those failed operations are evidence that countries WILL invade areas with less than ideal numbers.