> I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.

Not sure what you mean - that's exactly what it is - do you think 'conventional' has some kind of ethical meaning? If so you're just mistaken about what the term means.

It means along the spectrum it's higher intensity than something like a counter-insurgency operation, or 'sub-threshold' we might say, but it's not as far gone as a nuclear engagement.

Conventional is exactly the right term unfortunately.

"Conventional" means all-out war, army vs army. The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army.

> The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army.

What does it do to the opposing army then? And what does that army do in the meantime?

Okay, I think that’s it: to me, using methods of conventional warfare, but aimed against civilians instead of military, is no longer conventional warfare.

When the US and the UK razed Dresden with 2000 bombers, it resulted in ≈25,000 deaths.

That actually is conventional warfare