I've been thinking about the potential of something ugly happening that, since I just don't have the time to trawl the latest news or every post without completely fucking over everything else I have going on, I don't think I've seen talked about much. There's been much about the Slavic Volksturm, and how it's a generally short sighted idea made out of desperation to fill the gaps in the line (presumably the rear, if any commanders have any sense, so that proper troops can be freed up to fight where needed more), but the side effect of using civilian militias is that you'll have the other guys getting really wary of civilians where they normally wouldn't be.
To get to the point faster, I'm thinking of a development possibly occurring that is similar to the Second Sino-Japanese War, before it got rolled up into the greater Second World War. The Chinese and Japanese were already in an unspoken mutual agreement that nobody was taking any prisoners since practically the word go, but the situation for civilians became infamously bad as part of another few factors. One of them being the Chinese army practice of, when retreating, to strip off their uniforms and retreat under the guise of being noncombatants until they reached friendly territory and could reorganize. When the Japanese started seeing this, and treating wayward civilians as simply military units in disguise...well, we know how that ended up.
Now obviously the Russians and Ukies' relationship with one another is nothing at all like the Japanese and the Chinese, but I can't help but think that mass arming of civilians is going to result in a completely avoidable large scale atrocity (much like how this war is happening at all, in my completely uneducated view, because of long term failures of diplomacy), if it hasn't already. I don't mean small incidents where somebody shoots up an ambulance because they're a jumpy retard or indirect incidents where some civilians get caught in an artillery barrage because you're shelling an urban target and that just happens no matter who you are, I'm talking history lecture bold text post-war monument level fuckup.
Now despite my willingness to talk at length on the subject my actual knowledge of history and warfare is at a level of what can be considered "enthusiastic hobbyist" or "developmentally delayed urban youth" so I'm hopefully wrong about this, or the reporting of arming civilians is massively overstated and is only a relatively local decision, but I can't help but have a bad feeling.