In the lead-up to the invasion, the graphics shown on TV news were clear: the Russian army numbered nearly one million active soldiers, with a couple million more reservists. That size contrasted with the relatively paltry 200,000 active-duty Ukrainian soldiers. Every category of military equipment told the same story: Russian tanks, artillery, and aircraft heavily outnumbered their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine was also outmatched financially, with Russian military spending coming in at 10 times that of Kyiv’s military budget.

Given this advantage, the Western mood was grim. The expectation was a swift decapitation of the Ukrainian state. The discussion centered on whether the United States should arm the sure-to-be subjugated Ukrainian people so they could better conduct an insurgent campaign against Russian occupation.

Traditional military thinking suggests that attackers need 3-to-1 odds to win a battle. The Russians did not have 3-to-1 odds, opting instead for something closer to even odds. Yet, even this statistic is misleading. When Ukraine’s reserve forces are counted, the invaded nation holds a numerical advantage. Equally important, Ukraine’s armed forces are not a ragtag group, as they have been trained by NATO advisers. When combined with NATO military equipment, Ukraine turned out to be a well-oiled military. The Russian invasion was thus never the unstoppable force it was portrayed to be.