Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Jacob]

Mick Ryan has a good writeup of likely Russian strategic objectives in the current situation: https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1515867128741588999

[jimmy olsen]

If they cut of those 22 BTGs, that would be an incredible victory and would mean that this war easily tops the Winter War and Russo-Japanese wars in the Russian hall of shame. It would be such a huge defeat for Russia that I can only see Putin immediately suing for peace or (more likely) using WMD to try and engineer a breakout.

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1515931331187912707

If the Ukrainians can hold, or even expand these attacks, basically the entire Russian force in Izyum, which was said to be up to 22 BTGs, is completely reliant on one road network to get everything it needs. I've used google maps to highlight it.

[grumbler]

If they cut of those 22 BTGs, that would be an incredible victory and would mean that this war easily tops the Winter War and Russo-Japanese wars in the Russian hall of shame. It would be such a huge defeat for Russia that I can only see Putin immediately suing for peace or (more likely) using WMD to try and engineer a breakout.

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1515931331187912707

If the Ukrainians can hold, or even expand these attacks, basically the entire Russian force in Izyum, which was said to be up to 22 BTGs, is completely reliant on one road network to get everything it needs. I've used google maps to highlight it.

The Russians wouldn't need WMD to break out, they could just attack the weakest part of the encirclement and break themselves out.  It is as true for Ukrainians as for Russians that, for every mile you extend your salient, your front line is lengthened by two miles.

The significance of this Ukrainian action (if it succeeds) isn't going to be in Russian casualties, but in retaking a lot of key terrain (that the Russians paid top dollar for) and the disruption of the entire Russian offensive plan that counted on Izyum being a jaw of the pincers.

[The Brain]

I think we need to define what it means to be human, or at least what we figuratively mean when we talk about it.  I doubt that humans instinctively have aversion to treating whoever they classify as "others" very poorly, rape and genocide is the rule rather than the exception in animal kingdom, and I see no reason why human instincts evolved in the opposite direction.  When monkeys fight for resources, the winners don't put the losers in POW camps, and for the vast majority of history, neither did humans.

I think that what it means to be human is to set up and follow complex systems designed to counteract certain natural instincts, or to educate ourselves to the point where these instincts are blunted out of existence.  By setting up these systems and enforcing them, we make everyone better off.  One loses more by being murdered than one gains from murdering someone else, so collectively we're better off if we stick to not murdering each other.  People who wantonly rape and murder may physically be human species, but they certainly aren't adhering to the system that made human species a unique exception.

FWIW I don't think it's very helpful to use a human-nonhuman scale in this matter. "No true human" opens oneself up to all kinds of criticism. And I'm not sure for what gain.

[DGuller]

I think we need to define what it means to be human, or at least what we figuratively mean when we talk about it.  I doubt that humans instinctively have aversion to treating whoever they classify as "others" very poorly, rape and genocide is the rule rather than the exception in animal kingdom, and I see no reason why human instincts evolved in the opposite direction.  When monkeys fight for resources, the winners don't put the losers in POW camps, and for the vast majority of history, neither did humans.

I think that what it means to be human is to set up and follow complex systems designed to counteract certain natural instincts, or to educate ourselves to the point where these instincts are blunted out of existence.  By setting up these systems and enforcing them, we make everyone better off.  One loses more by being murdered than one gains from murdering someone else, so collectively we're better off if we stick to not murdering each other.  People who wantonly rape and murder may physically be human species, but they certainly aren't adhering to the system that made human species a unique exception.

FWIW I don't think it's very helpful to use a human-nonhuman scale in this matter. "No true human" opens oneself up to all kinds of criticism. And I'm not sure for what gain.

I don't know where I was going there either.  I was coming from the point of view that I don't get why the status of being human is so special in conversations.  There are humans who are serial killers, child rapists, sadistic torturers, etc., even outside of the Russian military, so what point is being made by reiterating something that is obvious from a biological standpoint?

[Berkut]

I think we need to define what it means to be human, or at least what we figuratively mean when we talk about it.  I doubt that humans instinctively have aversion to treating whoever they classify as "others" very poorly, rape and genocide is the rule rather than the exception in animal kingdom, and I see no reason why human instincts evolved in the opposite direction.  When monkeys fight for resources, the winners don't put the losers in POW camps, and for the vast majority of history, neither did humans.

I think that what it means to be human is to set up and follow complex systems designed to counteract certain natural instincts, or to educate ourselves to the point where these instincts are blunted out of existence.  By setting up these systems and enforcing them, we make everyone better off.  One loses more by being murdered than one gains from murdering someone else, so collectively we're better off if we stick to not murdering each other.  People who wantonly rape and murder may physically be human species, but they certainly aren't adhering to the system that made human species a unique exception.

FWIW I don't think it's very helpful to use a human-nonhuman scale in this matter. "No true human" opens oneself up to all kinds of criticism. And I'm not sure for what gain.

I don't know where I was going there either.  I was coming from the point of view that I don't get why the status of being human is so special in conversations.  There are humans who are serial killers, child rapists, sadistic torturers, etc., even outside of the Russian military, so what point is being made by reiterating something that is obvious from a biological standpoint?

I think the point that some of us are trying to make is just that - there isn't anything special about being "human" that means you can't be a horrific human.

Therefore, what is the utility of using a label like "Orc" to describe a bunch of humans?

We know how and why that has been used in the past - it is a way to de-humanize humans so we can be more sanguine about what happens to them. It is one of those "lizard brain" things where we all have an easier time killing or torturing or simply not caring about some others if we can define them as not deserving of human empathy.

That is my objection - calling Russian soldiers "orcs" has no rational utility. If we are using reason, calling them an orc doesn't tell us anything that cannot be told otherwise.

The only utility I can see to the term is an effort to de-humanize them. To what point? There are plenty of historic examples of where that has turned out to have its own horrific consequences. I suppose there is an argument to be made that it was actually useful anyway. That dehumanizing the Japanese was a necessary step in helping us destroy them militarily. But that is, IMO, a pretty tough argument to make, and I don't think anyone has even tried to make it here.

[Admiral Yi]

The utility of labeling a bunch of humans orcs is to pass judgement on their behavior.  It's much like calling them monsters.

[grumbler]

The utility of labeling a bunch of humans orcs is to pass judgement on their behavior.  It's much like calling them monsters.

That seems to have no utility whatsoever, given that we already have labels for criminals (like "criminal").

The utility of calling Russian soldiers "orcs" is to avoid having to judge the behavior of them as individuals.  Instead, we can call them "orcs" and console ourselves that we are not really killing people like us; orcs either have murdered civilians or just haven't had a chance yet.

[Berkut]

The utility of labeling a bunch of humans orcs is to pass judgement on their behavior.  It's much like calling them monsters.

You don't have to call them orcs to do that.

[Habbaku]

I think they're more like kobolds.

[DGuller]

In other news from the humans of Russian variety, the Russian unit that was stationed in Bucha and is accused of perpetrating the massacre has been promoted to a guards division.  It's like the Russian variation of "trigger the libs", or more like the original from which the American variation was derived.

[Admiral Yi]

You don't have to call them orcs to do that.

No you don't.  English is a rich language, with many words that have similar meanings.

[Berkut]

You don't have to call them orcs to do that.

No you don't.  English is a rich language, with many words that have similar meanings.

Indeed. So it seems better to avoid choices that de-humanize others for no apparent purpose beyond the de-humanizing.

[Jacob]

I think the "Orcs" usage originated with the Ukrainians themselves, and has been adopted by some folks wishing to signal their support of Ukraine.

For my part, I'm not going to use the term as I think the points about dehumanizing enemies are valid. On the other hand, I'm not going to police the language of a people who are fighting an existential war of survival.

[The Minsky Moment]

In other news from the humans of Russian variety, the Russian unit that was stationed in Bucha and is accused of perpetrating the massacre has been promoted to a guards division.  It's like the Russian variation of "trigger the libs", or more like the original from which the American variation was derived.

In the prosecution business, we call that proof of intent.