If you think the number of people is what counts: there's a cliché that the attacker needs a 3:1 advantage. Russia's population of 15-30-year-olds was less than three times Ukraine's, if you exclude immigrants.
Nobody said anything about the economy. The second most powerful country. The have a massive amount of nuclear weapons and their ability to manufacture traditional weapons is far less than the United States.
Ukraine, is just depending on a hope and a prayer from other countries to support them, which is faltering and realistically they have lost a ton of young people and many of the kids don't want to fight, they want to escape.
I don't see any realistic situation they can do anything to Russia. Russia's economy hasn't collapsed. So I'm not sure what they can do.
Mostly irrelevant to their ability to defeat Ukraine in a conventional war, though it may constrain outside aid to Ukraine somewhat.
> and their ability to manufacture traditional weapons is far less than the United States.
This is not something that works in their favor.
> Ukraine, is just depending on a hope and a prayer from other countries to support them, which is faltering and realistically they have lost a ton of young people and many of the kids don't want to fight, they want to escape.
Russia has also lost a ton of young people (far more than the USSR lost over a decade in Afghanistan, a major contributor to the political collapse of the USSR), and seen lots of people trying to escape. Or firebombing recruitment centers, etc. They've also lost a lot of not young people — quite a lot of their senior/experienced combat pilots, and an unusually large proportion of field grade and general officers.
Economists have a way to measure that: Add the manufacturing sectors of the economy and convert currencies using PPP. At a pinch, GNP minus raw materials will do.