Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Pacific wrote:
As much as I think of Putin as an appalling despot, I think making the Ukraine part of NATO is an incredible bad idea.

We're currently remembering the centenary of the Great War; a war that escalated far beyond the original issues due to mutual protection pacts. Yet for some reason people are citing the opportunity for collective defence agreements (such as NATO) as somehow making a war within Europe less likely.

It's important to set one thing straight; no-one wants a war with Russia, and the discussion of 'invading' such a country (or them invading us) is absolutely bat-gak insane. But, sabre rattling and 'standing shoulder to shoulder' as our esteemed politicians like to quote, just increases the potential for a mistake to be made (it doesn't have to be intentional), and for it to make it far more difficult for either side to back down once the first bodies are being zipped up into bags.

Exalted.

This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.

**BaronIveagh**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Exalted.

This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.

We risk WW3 every day just for the egos. At least if the whole place went to hell in a handbasket over the Ukraine, we could say there was a reason.

Dunno about England, but several NATO members have recently kicked out Russia's ambassadors and some have had the act reciprocated by Russia for various reasons.

At the rate Vladamir's going, Finland will soon have a terrible famine that Russia will have to send their army in to distribute aid supplies.

**Iron_Captain**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means ~~meat shields~~ buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?

Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.

Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.

Couldn't have said it better. Some people here say NATO is a paper tiger, but that is not how it seems to the Russians.
They do not realise what a huge shock the NATO invasion of Serbia (Russia's staunch ally for centuries) was for Russia.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Russia's paranoia regarding invasion goes back centuries all the way to Napoleon. Its been invaded countless times throughout i'ts history, Napoleon, the Crimean War, WW1, WW2...Russia's paranoia over invasion from the West is equivalent to France's historical paranoia over invasion from Germany. And Russia's renewed belligerence is largely a consequence of our own ineptitude. We treated them like we treated inter war Germany 1918-1933, with humiliation and contempt, and like Germany we are reaping the consequences now that a charismatic authoritarian leader has taken power with promises of restoring national pride and greatness.

It actually goes back much further. Russia has been invaded by the Teutonic Knights (multiple times), the Lithuanians, the Swedes (multiple times), and the Poles (multiple times, once they captured Moscow) before Napoleon. From the East and South, Russia has been repeatedly invaded by Mongols, Tatars and Turks. For most of its history, Russia has been invaded on average about once every generation (not to mention the continuous smaller raids). It is only after Russia expanded and conquered many buffer areas that the invasions and raids became less. So yes, Russia has become really paranoid about foreign incursions. This historical trauma is a large factor in why Russia sees NATO as such a large existential threat.
In the minds of many, NATO is not just a threat to Russian political interests, it is a threat to Russian civilisation as a whole. NATO wants to subjugate Russian people and destroy traditional Russian communalistic culture and replace it with decadent consumerist American culture. This myth has originates from and was very prevalent in Soviet propaganda and it has now made a return in modern Russian mass media. The clash between Russia and the West is not just a political struggle, it is a cultural struggle, a clash of civilisations. This is also why we see the Russian government cracking down on organisations that receive funding from the West and media with pro-Western viewpoints. Those are seen as subversive attempts to destroy Russian culture from inside out.
It is a huge load of gak of course, but many Russians, especially the large group that never got over the Fall of the Soviet Union and the lower educated masses believe this myth. Putin and other politicians, rather than discouraging it, reinforce it and cater to it, thus guaranteeing lots of votes for them.

**reds8n**

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=11688

Cossacks to help Moscow police maintain public order in recreation zones, in areas around churches and monasteries

Moscow, November 28, Interfax - A team of Cossack vigilantes has been set up in Moscow to help police provide public order and is to go on duty for the first time at the Kuzminki Park on December 6, a spokesperson for the Moscow Department for inter-regional cooperation, national policy and relations with religious organizations told Interfax.

"The Cossack vigilantes will be on Moscow streets along with police officers. They will conduct joint patrol in order to provide public order in wooded park areas, summer and winter recreation zones, and in areas around Orthodox churches and monasteries," the spokesperson said.

Cossack patrol teams will also provide public order during major entertainment shows and religious events. The specialized Cossack team will be operating in accordance with the Russian laws, the spokesperson said.

The Central Cossack Army's Military Cossack Society has recommended that the Cossack team recruit Russian citizens aged 18 and above, residing in Moscow and the Moscow region, who have volunteered to take part in vigilante activities, and whose integrity, health and physical fitness make them capable of performing the duties of a vigilante, the spokesperson said.

Bodes well ....

**His Master's Voice**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.

Not worth the bones of a single British grenadier, eh?

How the wheel of history turns.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Government sanctioned vigilantism?

Can they be called vigilantes if they're approved by and potentially controlled by the government?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

His Master's Voice wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.

Not worth the bones of a single British grenadier, eh?

How the wheel of history turns.

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the Crimean War of the 19th century?

**Frazzled**

Putin better hurry. There are rumors his plummeting economy may hit a currency crisis. Thanks Saudi Arabia!

**reds8n**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Government sanctioned vigilantism?

Can they be called vigilantes if they're approved by and potentially controlled by the government?

.. I think it might depend upon what colour shirts they wear.

**Hordini**

reds8n wrote:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=11688

Cossacks to help Moscow police maintain public order in recreation zones, in areas around churches and monasteries

Moscow, November 28, Interfax - A team of Cossack vigilantes has been set up in Moscow to help police provide public order and is to go on duty for the first time at the Kuzminki Park on December 6, a spokesperson for the Moscow Department for inter-regional cooperation, national policy and relations with religious organizations told Interfax.

"The Cossack vigilantes will be on Moscow streets along with police officers. They will conduct joint patrol in order to provide public order in wooded park areas, summer and winter recreation zones, and in areas around Orthodox churches and monasteries," the spokesperson said.

Cossack patrol teams will also provide public order during major entertainment shows and religious events. The specialized Cossack team will be operating in accordance with the Russian laws, the spokesperson said.

The Central Cossack Army's Military Cossack Society has recommended that the Cossack team recruit Russian citizens aged 18 and above, residing in Moscow and the Moscow region, who have volunteered to take part in vigilante activities, and whose integrity, health and physical fitness make them capable of performing the duties of a vigilante, the spokesperson said.

Bodes well ....

It's probably an issue of poor translation. I'm guessing militia might be a better description than vigilantes.

**Kanluwen**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Government sanctioned vigilantism?

Can they be called vigilantes if they're approved by and potentially controlled by the government?

Yes, they can be.

A vigilante is, quoting here, "a civilian who undertakes law enforcement with or without government authority".

**BaronIveagh**

reds8n wrote:

.. I think it might depend upon what colour shirts they wear.

I foresee Brown as a shirt color in Putin's future.

**Grey Templar**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)

Saxons and Vikings do not count because,

1) When the Saxons came it was a migration, not an invasion. They weren't conquering a political entity like when William landed and there was no organized opposition.

2) The Vikings were raiding and migrating. No hostile take over of a political entity. Just small groups taking small bits.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grey Templar wrote:

2) The Vikings were raiding and migrating. No hostile take over of a political entity. Just small groups taking small bits.

Also, to a very large degree, the Vikings who settled various parts of the world assimilated themselves into the existing society (as the case was for Normandy in France), or populated barren rocks (as in the case of Iceland)

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)

When the Saxons, Jutes and Angles invaded Britannia, England didn't exist as a nation or even as a word. It was they who gave the region we now know as England it's name (Angles - ENGland, Angles and Saxons - Anglo-Saxons).

And when the Vikings began their raids and invasions, England still did not exist as a unified nation state, it was merely a name for the lands occupied by the various Anglo Saxon people's and warring Kingdoms. The Vikings conquered individual Anglo Saxon kingdoms piecemeal.

So no, the Saxons and Vikings do not count. Except for the late Viking invasions of the 11th century, when England did exist.

Invading a country that did not yet exist would quite be a feat of time travel.

**BaronIveagh**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
England didn't exist as a nation or even as a word

Yes, it was called Britannia at the time..... and still was in the late 11th century, depending on who you asked.

**Frazzled**

Saxons and Vikings do not count because,

1) When the Saxons came it was a migration, not an invasion. They weren't conquering a political entity like when William landed and there was no organized opposition.

The natives disagree.

2) The Vikings were raiding and migrating. No hostile take over of a political entity. Just small groups taking small bits.

Er check your history again. It started that way. The the biker gangs...er VIkings...got greedy.

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:

The natives disagree.

I seem to recall their high point was called the Battle of Mons Badonicus.

He might want to consult De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae or Historia Brittonum. Possibly Annales Cambriae. Might want to look up a certain dux bellorum named 'Artorius'.

**Wyrmalla**

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Mexico install something similar recently in order to fight the drug cartels. As it stands though, yes this is just another way of having more boots on the ground for the Kremlin. However IIRC similar groups are already in place about Russia and have been for a good while. I mean just from reading novels set about the area police units and militia seem to be interchangeable. Cossacks though...Ah, yeah, not a high score in public relations when it comes to certain groups (youknow, the ones which the Party has spent the last while putting laws in place to discriminate against).

Hmn, its just surprising how things could have taken this course, but well looking at history the whole rise of Putin's just checking off the boxes. Give it fifty years and some historian will cite a bunch of tell tale signs that things over the past twenty years would have led us here. =P

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Mexican militia groups, yeah. I remember news reports of gun battles between militias and cartels.

**chaos0xomega**

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/putin-vows-that-west-will-never-destroy-resurgent-russia-1.2025591

Putin vows that West will never destroy resurgent Russia

President Vladimir Putin has portrayed Russia as an invincible nation beset by foreign foes intent on weakening and even destroying it, in a combative speech that suggested he would not bow to Western pressure over the Ukraine crisis.

In an annual state-of-the-nation address, Mr Putin claimed the West had wanted to see his country dissolve in bloody chaos like Yugoslavia, but would suffer defeat like Adolf Hitler’s Germany if it challenged Russia militarily.

He also said the West used the Ukraine conflict and his country’s “reunification” with Crimea as pretexts to slap sanctions on a resurgent Russia, and suggested the sharp fall in the rouble’s value was also part of foreign scheming against Moscow.

In Ukraine, meanwhile, President Petro Poroshenko announced that government forces would halt fighting in eastern regions next Tuesday, as long as Russian-backed separatists did the same. A longer ceasefire could follow if the first day is successful.

Mr Putin spoke on Thursday in the Kremlin before members of Russia’s parliament as, far to the south in Chechnya, at least 10 police officers and 10 rebels were killed in the worst recent fighting in the region.

Denouncing the West for backing Ukraine’s revolution, Mr Putin said he had taken control of Crimea because it had “invaluable civilisational and even sacred meaning for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for followers of Islam and Judaism.”

It was in Crimea that Prince Vladimir the Great was baptised in 988, accepting Christianity as the faith of the eastern Slavs, and hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers died there in the Crimean and second World Wars. Mr Putin said that if the “Crimean spring” had not taken place, the West “would have come up with another reason to contain Russia’s growing capabilities”.
“
The policy of containment was not invented yesterday … every time anyone just thinks that Russia has become strong and independent, such instruments are applied immediately.”

“There is no doubt they would have loved to see the Yugoslavia scenario of collapse and dismemberment for us – with all the tragic consequences it would have for the peoples of Russia. This has not happened. We did not allow it,” Mr Putin said.

“Hitler also failed when, with his hateful ideas, he was going to destroy Russia, throw us back behind the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended.”

In his hour-long speech, Mr Putin emphasised that Russia did not seek confrontation or isolation, but said it would not be intimidated into changing course, and would continue to strengthen and to seek out new international partners.

Sinking oil prices, uncertainty caused by the Ukraine crisis and a tightening sanctions regime on Russia are starting to take their toll on its economy, accelerating capital flight and wiping nearly 40 percent off the rouble’s value.

Mr Putin ordered Russia’s government and central bank to take tough action against currency “speculators”, while promising those who returned their capital to Russia that no questions would be asked by the police or tax authorities.

Proposing his “amnesty”, Mr Putin said: “We all understand that the origins of money can be different, that it was earned and obtained in various ways, but I am confident that the offshore page in our economy’s history … should be closed.”

“The difficulties we are facing also create new possibilities for us,” he added.

“We are ready to meet any challenge of the times, and win.”

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said in Switzerland: “It is not our design or desire that we see a Russia isolated through its own actions. Moscow could rebuild trust and relationships if it simply helps to calm turbulent waters” in Ukraine.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/12/04/president-vladimir-putin-warns-of-tough-times/

President Vladimir Putin warns of tough times

Be prepared for hard times. That was one message for Russians from President Vladimir Putin in his state-of-the nation address to parliament. He urged self-reliance with the nation gripped in an economic chill.

Figures from the Federal Statistics Service in Moscow show inflation accelerated more than economists predicted reaching the fastest pace since June 2011. Consumer prices surged 9.1 percent from a year earlier in November compared with 8.3 percent in October.

The president announced a range of measures including what one commentator referred to as a remarkable call for a one off amnesty.

“I propose a full amnesty for capitals returning to Russia. It means that if a person legalizes his capital and property in Russia he will get firm guarantees that he will not be pursued or asked about the source of revenue, he will not be brought to justice or face taxation issues. Let us do it now but only once,” Putin told parliament.

Russians may have been impressed investors were not. The rouble weakened again, by mid-afternoon it was 1.6 percent lower on the day against the dollar. Over the past year it has lost around 40 percent of its value against the dollar.

Falling oil prices have hit the country hardest and in an effort to boost the economy Putin announced a four-year freeze on tax rates to help businesses. He predicted budget cuts of at least 5 percent over the next three years.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
And Russia is determined to cling to its status as a "great power" despite never really being one to begin with.

There was no way Russia could have "won" the Cold War. It's economy couldn't sustain the spending required to keep pace with the post-WW2 US.

To be fair, the US economy couldn't really sustain the spending required to keep pace with the post-WW2 US either. Theres a reason why our economy is in shambles right now, and that reason goes a lot further back than Dubya or Clintons presidencies. The simple truth of the matter is that both Russia and the US were playing an economic game of chicken, Russia blinked first.

**Iron_Captain**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)

Russia has been invaded unsuccesfully a lot more than twice. Disregarding the Crimean War (as the aim there was not to take territory), the last invasion of Russia that was succesful was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles.
Also, blaming the defeats of Hitler and Napoleon entirely on their egos displays ignorance of history. In both wars the Russians had great strategists such as Kutuzov and Zhukov and in both wars they outmanoeuvred the invaders by using Russia's vast size to slowly bleed them to death. Russia's victory in both wars was more due to Russia's size, harsh environment and tenacity of the Russian people than due to an arrogant leader on the other side. Russia had plenty of arrogant leaders itself.

And speaking of invasions of Britain, how come everyone always forgets about the latest and most succesful of them all, when the Dutch invaded and conquered Britain with a fleet twice the size of the Armada, put their leader on the British throne and pacified Ireland all with only minor effort and casualties? Everyone always forgets the Glorious Revolution.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Iron_Captain wrote:
And speaking of invasions of Britain, how come everyone always forgets about the latest and most succesful of them all, when the Dutch invaded and conquered Britain with a fleet twice the size of the Armada, put their leader on the British throne and pacified Ireland all with only minor effort and casualties? Everyone always forgets the Glorious Revolution.

Doesn't count because we consented to it.

...

Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.

**BaronIveagh**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia has been invaded unsuccesfully a lot more than twice. Disregarding the Crimean War (as the aim there was not to take territory), the last invasion of Russia that was successful was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles.
Also, blaming the defeats of Hitler and Napoleon entirely on their egos displays ignorance of history.

So, you're saying that Napoleon refusing to finish off the mauled Russian army with his fresh reserves at Borodino when Kutuzov fumbled the withdrawal and assuming that Russia would surrender just because he occupied Moscow did not lose the war for him? and that Hitler forcing his generals to wait in plain sight so the Russians could reenforce to their hearts content at Kursk, or refuse to allow them to draw the Russians into a war of maneuver against the Germans, one they could have likely won? (Remember that the Russian army, while more numerous, was not yet as mobile as it was later in the war and the Germans had for all intents and purposes absolute air superiority..)

And *I'M* the one ignorant of History?

Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia's victory in both wars was more due to Russia's size, harsh environment and tenacity of the Russian people than due to an arrogant leader on the other side.

You do realize that not planning for those things was arrogance, right? Napoleon assuming it would be all over by Winter. Hitler by not playing to the existing divisions in Russia at the time. Most of western Russia would have torn itself apart before the Nazis ever got there if they had played it right.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Doesn't count because we consented to it. ...

Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.

I seem to recall the Irish's objections to english rule in general rolled on for about 500 years and the casualties on all sides were quite heavy, actually. If you only want to start with William of Orange and Mary of England (thus, not an invasion, but a usurpation, since Mary was in line for the throne) the Jacobite rebellions were um, quite long, and bloody, finally coming to a military end with Bonnie Prince Charlie at the Battle of Culloden.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Doesn't count because we consented to it. ...

Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.

I seem to recall the Irish's objections to english rule in general rolled on for about 500 years and the casualties on all sides were quite heavy, actually. If you only want to start with William of Orange and Mary of England (thus, not an invasion, but a usurpation, since Mary was in line for the throne) the Jacobite rebellions were um, quite long, and bloody, finally coming to a military end with Bonnie Prince Charlie at the Battle of Culloden.

Well yes, thats what I said. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?

**BaronIveagh**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Well yes, thats what I said. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?

Agreeing, but clarifying that his assertion that it was not bloody and violent was also incorrect. Even though the public did consent by and large.

**reds8n**

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-s-supreme-court-declares-jehovah-s-witnesses-website-extremist/512562.html

.. I know there's a view they're a little annoying maybe but...

**loki old fart**

Also from the same source
www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-west-doesn-t-understand-russians/512677.html

Russians love to criticize themselves, the authorities and their hulking, clumsy state, but they hate it when outsiders do it. Perhaps that is wrong: Maybe outsiders are naturally more objective. But right or wrong, that's how they are, and what Russians hate most of all is when foreign powers pressure them with force. That is the best way to mobilize Russians, to compel them to unite in order to fight off the opponent.

And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice. That is why most Russians care little about arguments that Moscow annexed Crimea in violation of international law.

Russian diplomats and politicians, by virtue of their job descriptions, are prepared to debate that issue, but the overwhelming majority of Russians would simply assert that the annexation restored historical justice. Like Cicero, they hold that whatever is most fair is also most right.

This is why the sanctions are so ineffective against the Russian character and mentality. If the aim of the sanctions is to force Russia to change its domestic and foreign policy, they will not succeed. If the aim is to weaken President Vladimir Putin's position at home, they will also fail. Only when the Russian people themselves decide that they are fed up with Putin will his rule come to an end — but not before, and not due to any pressure from the West.

**AlmightyWalrus**

loki old fart wrote:
And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.

Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?

**loki old fart**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.

Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?

I think the russian people see it as, laws are made by man, and can be fethed up. justice is justice, and thats just that.
The ruling classes make up the laws. And the rest put up with them. "The law prosecutes rich and poor for sleeping under bridges" How many rich people have to sleep under bridges.

**Ketara**

Iron_Captain wrote:

And speaking of invasions of Britain, how come everyone always forgets about the latest and most succesful of them all, when the Dutch invaded and conquered Britain with a fleet twice the size of the Armada, put their leader on the British throne and pacified Ireland all with only minor effort and casualties? Everyone always forgets the Glorious Revolution.

The reason people tend to forget about William is because when he landed, he came equipped with twice as many arms as he had actual soldiers, so he could equip the British revolutionaries. If a good chunk of the country hadn't sided with William, and James' army hadn't been riven with traitors and deserters as a result, William would have been crushed. He only landed with 15,000 men.

In other words, whilst we lost that war, we won it too. Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.