[bell-cot]

High-quality commercial satellite photos are a thing now. Is there decent evidence that Russia is building up the sort of supply & logistics tail needed to support a major invasion? Or just a bunch of shorter-range and token actions - which still would give Moscow "Regional 900 lbs. Gorilla" bragging rights, but at <5% of the cost.

Maybe western powers are talking big about sanctions & such to make it even cheaper for Moscow to feel big. (Vs. actual military action, which tends to kill a lot of people even when "nothing goes wrong".)

And maybe The Guardian does have a passably sophisticated understanding of the situation. But I don't see much evidence of that.

[nradov]

Yes there is some evidence of invasion preparations from commercial satellite imagery.

https://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-reveal-russ...

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2021/12/27/satelli...

[bell-cot]

Maybe I skimmed too fast, but neither link seems to mention a logistical build-up.

You can park tanks on your side of the border and talk big without a major logistical build-up. Or "just barely" cross the border in force. Or run a token few units deep into Ukraine (+/- local opposition). But to actually move large, modern military forces deep into Ukraine (the country is over 500,000 sq. km), a huge logistical build-up would be necessary.

Invasion is not a video game, where tanks & troop transports have unlimited fuel, never need spare parts, and there are big piles of ammunition (of the exact right sizes & types for Russian weapons) scattered every few km through the Ukrainian countryside.

[bigodbiel]

Agreed. One thing is military presence, either hybrid or “protecting Russian nationals” in the disputed regions (self proclaimed peace-keepers). Another is going to Kiev. Going by Mr. Schiff’s quote “further invade” that seems like a reasonable assumption as to where the line is drawn.