"Together We Christened Our Children"

A 2014 poem by the Ukrainian author of "We Will Never Be Brothers."

Another poem from 2014 by Ukrainian Anastasia Dmitruk, who also wrote "We Will Never Be Brothers" the same year; the performance is by a Georgian, Zaza Zaalishvili (echoing the Lithuanian musicians' performance of We Will Never Be Brothers). I think it's a good bookend to that poem, because it captures the potential closeness that was lost, in large measure in 2014 and now, I think, entirely, and for a long time to come.

Here, with the usual apologies, is an imprecise and highly imperfect translation (e.g., "guys" is the best translation I could find of "ребята," but it doesn't have quite the same tone):

Return to us our skies,
Return to us our peace!
Why did you come, neighbors?
Why did you come with war?

Together we christened our children
And drank to our friendship…
Why did you put chains around us
With the columns of your soldiers?

Much pain to us has been given—
The funerals of our sons.
We saw much sorrow,
We became even stronger.

Why did you come here, guys?
Why did you decide on war?
We'll stand against you as brothers
We too were taught to shoot.

We stand—we have Freedom,
Machineguns won't carry her off.
We won't surrender without fighting,
Let all the churches ring the alarm.

We saw death, guys,
We looked her bravely in the eyes
No need for war, no need…
After, you can't go back.

Comments

[Cal Cetín]

Professor, why not do in reality what Wilson only pretended to do - be neutral in thought and deed.

Unless Congress (as opposed to the media) declares war.

[Eugene Volokh]

I'm afraid I don't understand -- are you suggesting that the government be neutral in thought and deed? Or the rest of us?

[Cal Cetín]

I'm suggesting that if Wilson (and the public) had taken seriously the advice he gave the public, maybe we wouldn't have gone into WWI.

By analogy, if the public tries to at least reserve judgment on foreign clashes involving nuclear-armed powers, maybe the risk of getting into a war with such a nuclear-armed power, would be reduced.

"neutral in thought and deed" is a bit extreme - I doubt Wilson believed it, for example - but it's better than egging ourselves on to take sides in a clash abroad before weighing the alternatives.

All these war songs are inspiring, of course, but they're supposed to be - they're supposed to inspire the listener to march off and fight. They build a shortcut across our brains so we get straight to fighting before we do much thinking.

While I haven't been following the background of the war closely, some who have been doing so have cautioned me not to swallow whole the media presentation of events.

Are we required to believe, at one and the same time, that (a) don't believe the Russian propaganda, Ukraine doesn't have bioweapons labs (b) we should be deeply concerned that the Russians will take the totall-not-bioweapons-labs which happen to contain all sorts of pathogens.

Did U. S. politicians encourage separatists in the Donbass to fight at a time when there was supposed to be a cease-fire? If so, I would file it under the category of "dumbasses in the Donbass."

Maybe this is all Russian propaganda - though it would be nice to see some rebuttals.

[Cal Cetín]

Now, if Congress weighs the evidence and declares war, I'd totally be with the USA and would patriotically shun Russian misinformation. But we're not at war, and I'd like to see what each side says.

[Absaroka]

"... but it's better than egging ourselves on to take sides in a clash abroad before weighing the alternatives."

But what if I have weighed the alternatives? What if, for example, having studied history, I think that aiding Ukraine today minimizes the chance of a general war if Putin invades Estonia or Poland?

What if I think totalitarian nations invading their democratic neighbors is bad in and of itself, and ought to be opposed, whether it is North Korea invading South Korea or Russia invading Ukraine?

[Cal Cetín]

Then you've weighed the alternatives, haven't you?

[wolfefan]

Hello Cal. Why do you assume, then, that Eugene or others have not? I believe that Eugene has considered the situation, likely more closely than you given your own words, and come to his conclusion. If you disagree with him that's fine, but that's different than suggesting that he should not post what he wishes about a situation that he likely has followed for a long time.

[bernard11]

Cal,

Quit listening to Tucker Carlson.

Bioweapons labs. Geez.

[DaivdBehar]

Why Putin still alive? This toxic lawyer needs to be taken out.

[Ed Grinberg]

?
If there's one thing Putin is not, it's a lawyer. He's a thug.

[Cal Cetín]

"As long as a neutral nation wishes securely to enjoy the advantages of her neutrality, she must in all things show *a strict impartiality towards the belligerent powers*: for, should she favour one of the parties to the prejudice of the other, she cannot complain of being treated by him as an adherent and confederate of his enemy."

(Vattel, Chitty, Ingraham, *The Law of Nations.* Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson, Law Booksellers, 1852, 331-32)

Of course, this applies to governments not citizens, but the media seems to want the U. S. government to engage in (to put it mildly) non-neutral acts, which Vattel (who was Swiss, after all, so he knew a bit about neutrality) says leaves Russia at liberty to broaden the war to us.

So if we want to stay out of war, then let's...stay out of the war.

Or maybe this non-NATO country is such a vital U. S. interest as to justify leaving the safe harbor of neutrality and embarking on the uncharted waters of belligerency. If that's what Congress says, then "may my country always be right, but right or wrong, my country."

[Eugene Volokh]

There's a lot going on in your comments, and I think it bears separating.

1. Of course we as citizens should be open to considering everyone's arguments (and I hope the government is, too). I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise.

2. What the U.S. government should do now is an interesting question, but I have no informed opinion on it (and have therefore expressed none).

3. But as to "the public" "being neutral in thought and deed" "until Congress ... declares war," how can that possibly make sense? In a democracy (or a republic, if you prefer, I don't want to get into that debate here), the public isn't supposed to wait for guidance from the government before deciding what to think and say and urge and demand -- the government is supposed to take guidance from the public (though of course elected officials are also elected in part to make their own informed judgment). Each of us is entitled to make up our own minds and to express our views to our fellow citizens, including our elected officials, without waiting for guidance from Congress.

[Cal Cetín]

Indeed, my limited objection was to the publishing of war songs which, by their nature, take shortcuts through our brains.

I'm not an expert, but I'm fairly confident the Russians have very stirring war songs.

Even the Montenegrins manage a national anthem which makes The Star-Spangled Banner sound like "Shiny Happy People Holding Hands."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bZYmCsEfmE&list=RD2bZYmCsEfmE&start_radio=1

[Cal Cetín]

So (assuming Congress is eagerly waiting for the authentic voice of the people) then all the more reason to look at the national interest and leave the war songs until war is declared.

I guess my beef is not so much with this blog (not all of it anyway) as with the legacy media and its lazy and one-sided reporting - that's the context in which these songs come before us.

Of course, it's logically possible that Putin is the next Hitler, that he has to be cut off at the pass even at great sacrifice, even on behalf of a non-NATO ally. It's a conclusion I hesitate to reach given the risks of war, but it's logically possible that Putin must be resisted, even if the media is dumb.

[Eugene Volokh]

You think that reading an amateur English translation of a Russian poem is going to take shortcuts through your brain?

If you're going to persuade me to stop publishing what I feel like publishing (including material that might offer some modest insight into Ukrainian reactions to the Russian invasions, as I suggested in my initial post), I think you're going to need a better argument.

[Cal Cetín]

I do beg your pardon - if I wasn't sufficiently distinguishing between this blog and the legacy media then I may have been taking some shortcuts of my own.

Of course you can post as you like, and can decide if you want commenters to post as they like (though based on the Rev, you seem to let people post criticisms which make mine look like gushing compliments).

[Eugene Volokh]

Thanks, but is the legacy media playing Ukrainian patriotic songs that are translated in a way that so tugs on the heartstrings of Americans that they take shortcuts through American brains? I would love to hear a clip of that.

[Voize of Reazon]

I'm not worried about war song mind control because I have the brim of my tinfoil hat pulled down tight.
Works against the satellites too.

[Cal Cetín]

The warmongers have me beat in terms of paranoia - eg., the ever-moderate and reasonable Mitt Romney saying Tulsi Gabbard's insufficiently-deferential comments about Ukraine were treasonous lies.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://dennisprager.com/column/ukraine-what-is-in-americas-interest/

[bernard11]

Dennis Prager?

Isn't he the genius who went out and got Covid so he would be immune, and never get it again?

Moron.

[neurodoc]

Is there some reason why Cal Cetin regularly posts one peculiar comment and then in short order publishes another seemingly by way of follow-on or follow-up or something? Or is it just in keeping with being a queer duck? Enquiring minds wish to know.

(Also, why is Tucker Carlson wired in the strange fashion he is with respect to Putin and Russia, as well as in respect to many other subjects?)

[Cal Cetín]

Frankly, I was hoping to disengage from serious commenting and maybe limit myself to a few bad jokes, preparatory to backing off from commenting altogether.

But I haven't been keeping to this resolution.

For one thing, I wanted to get in a few "antiwar" comments now, because who knows what I'll be permitted to say once the U. S. A. gets into this war for real. And even if permitted to say it, I don't know if I'd want to criticize a war if declared by Congress - America should follow Polonius' advice,

Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee.

Right now we're in the "Beware/Of entrance to a quarrel" stage, I hope we don't get to the next stage, but if so, I hope we come up with some creative (non-nukey) way to take on Russia.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "antiwar"
Sometimes war is called for. Pacifists are wrong.

[Cal Cetín]

I put "antiwar" in quotes *because* my comments weren't in fact pacifist - not in the sense of saying war is never called for.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/14/is-nothing-worth-a-war/

[bernard11]

why is Tucker Carlson wired in the strange fashion he is

Hey. You're the neurodoc. You should explain the wiring to us.

My guess is he doesn't care about Putin or anything other than his ego and his wallet. He'll say anything to increase his audience.

[Queen Amalthea]

Cal

I don't think the general public or the 'legacy media' is in a rush to war, they're just sympathetic to Ukraine because:

1. Russia is the aggressor here
2. Ukraine is considered more free than Russia (see their relative Freedom House scores)
3. Russia has been more negatively involved in disputes with us than Ukraine
4. Ukraine is a massive underdog

I too think we should as a matter of policy work to avoid war (no no fly zones or jet sales for examples) but it's hardly strange the public is more sympathetic to Ukraine.

I'm curious, did you make similar comments here during, say, the recent Syrian conflicts (which involved the US and Russia on differing sides)?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't agree entirely in that I see the media very much attempting to manipulate American public opinion toward taking actions that will involve us in that war. The lack of objective, verifiable information coming out of Ukraine is appalling. What we get are carefully constructed 'sound bites' that resemble objective reality about as well as a hunk of prime rib represents elephant shit.

The bottom line is that I do not trust our media. Nor do I trust the government. Both are corrupt and ethically bankrupt.

[Queen Amalthea]

" I do not trust our media. Nor do I trust the government. Both are corrupt and ethically bankrupt."

It's very easy to confirm such starting point biases of course (starting with this general inclination and then looking for all the evidence that "the media very much attempting to manipulate American public opinion toward taking actions that will involve us in that war...The lack of objective, verifiable information coming out of Ukraine is appalling..." etc.).

[Commenter_XY]

You're kidding me, right? Preconceived bias, my ass.

Are you seriously going to try and argue that the media has a good track record on accuracy in reporting? Please, make that case. Help me see the error of my ways. I see damned little reporting and an awful lot of narrating. A government that routinely violates your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments on a daily basis (NSA, FBI, etc.) is untrustworthy and ethically bankrupt.

While you're at it, how about you tell me a great Ukrainian source of objective, verifiable information. We get propaganda. And our press is little better.

I can agree with your #1 and #4, QA. But you are wrong about deliberate manipulation. It is happening right in front of you.

[bernard11]

And our press is little better.

Bullshit, XY.

It's one thing to make mistakes - you go try to report from a war zone - and another to spread propaganda.

The problem with "You can't trust the press" is that it allows you to make up your own stories on no basis whatsoever, except that they are simply what you would like to believe.

[Sarcastr0]

I've seen it on the left and the right - 'you can't trust the press' becomes 'instead I'll believe this one outlet that appeals to my priors.'

No, you can't uncritically believe the press. But that's not the same thing as reflexively distrusting the press. Because you need to trust someone, and the alternatives are much worse, even if such alternatives spend a lot of time yelling how they are the only honest ones.

[bernard11]

I've seen it on the left and the right - 'you can't trust the press' becomes 'instead I'll believe this one outlet that appeals to my priors.'

Exactly.

What are you going to do? Go to Ukraine yourself and start looking around?

[Absaroka]

My take is to realize the error bars around what I read can be pretty high.

And in this case, I do presume the Ukrainians (and also the Russians) are spinning the news for all they are worth, because the Ukrainians aren't dumb, and when you are in a war for your national survival you would be really dumb to not take every advantage you could.

And that is on top of the aptly named 'fog of war' that is present even when people aren't deliberately spinning.

Truth Is the First Casualty in War

[Commenter_XY]

I really like the way you put that (the distinction seems to have escaped others) = My take is to realize the error bars around what I read can be pretty high.

My mental picture is the candlestick chart. Very effective.

[David Nieporent]

My take is to realize the error bars around what I read can be pretty high.

Sure, and moreover, one should be extra skeptical of things one wants to be true. But there's a difference between being cautious and just reflexively rejecting what one hears.

[Absaroka]

"But there's a difference between being cautious and just reflexively rejecting what one hears."

No disagreement there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog features a remarkable concentration of disaffected (awkward, antisocial, alienated, marginalized) commenters.

As does the reason.com website in general.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Disaffected people have rights, too.

[bernard11]

What would you consider "objective, verifiable information coming out of Ukraine?"

What would be its source, if not the media?

You are essentially saying that you reject all information, and are going to stick with your completely uninformed opinion.

Do you doubt Russia is the aggressor here? Do you doubt that they are shelling cities and killing civilians? Do you believe this action is somehow justified?

If you answer "no" then how can you not be "biased" in favor of Ukraine?

And if you answer "yes," because you "don't trust the media" you're being very foolish.

[Commenter_XY]

Satellite imagery, unedited to 1 meter resolution = objective, verifiable information coming out of Ukraine

There are private companies who publish satellite imagery. Heck, our own government has been known to publish satellite imagery data when it serves their interest. As for media, Times of Israel has put out some good analysis and reporting, somewhat free of 'narrative'.

At a time where we really need 'un-massaged' information to form our own judgment about Ukraine, we get pablum and narrative from our media. The American people are being manipulated into making Ukraine an American fight. It is not, and it is wrong.

Ukraine is not worth a single American life; not one.

[Absaroka]

"Ukraine is not worth a single American life; not one."

Can you give your reasoning? Is it an objection to taking risks on behalf of others in general, i.e. 'saving the baby in the burning house is never worth risking another life'? Or the fairly common feeling that one would take large risks to save someone 'close', e.g. family members, lesser risks for an acquaintance, and less still for a stranger, and you view Ukrainians as very distant strangers?

If the latter, is that your view for all foreign countries, i.e. we also should take zero risks to aid Britain/Israel/South Korea?

[Commenter_XY]

You ask a fair question Absaroka (Can you give your reasoning?); I shall answer (and thank you for asking - seriously).

Ukraine does not represent a vital US national interest, and it never has. We do not have a treaty relationship with Ukraine (as in, a treaty ratified by the US Senate legally compelling the US to act). Those are two big reasons.

There is nothing to recommend Ukraine as an American partner. There is little to recommend Ukraine as a European partner. More to the point...there is a reason the EU and NATO sat on Ukraine's applications to join (EU, NATO). It is because they are a completely unworthy (and untrustworthy) partner, and are corrupt AF.

In 1956, POTUS Eisenhower wisely did not intervene in Hungary. It was controversial at the time. History has shown his decision to be correct. In 2022, POTUS Biden would do well to emulate Eisenhower vis a vis Ukraine. It is sad. It is tragic. But it is not an American problem requiring our intervention.

Your analogy on risk gradation is excellent. A vital US national interest, or treaty obligation? We do whatever it takes, at any cost short of existential. Continuing your analogy, Ukraine is a very distant stranger with a bad reputation; I am not going out of my way to help them.

Britain and SK are allies by treaty; we are legally obligated. Israel.....? Well, I am a Jew in the American Diaspora, Absaroka. So I have bias here; I readily concede that. I personally would go far out of my way to help Israel. But I would say in the same breath that in the absence of a treaty (ratified by the US Senate), or absent a vital US national interest, Israel fends for itself.

[Absaroka]

Thanks for the explanation.

[bernard11]

OK. But none of this says any of the facts being reported by the media are wrong.

You argue that we have no obligation, moral or legal, to help Ukraine, nor does it serve our interest in any way. But you can easily hold that opinion even if you believe, as I do, that the media reporting is reasonably accurate, given the circumstances, and is not deliberately biased.

So you really are just discrediting the media because it doesn't provide support for your ideas.

[Absaroka]

"But none of this says any of the facts being reported by the media are wrong ."

Remember the "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" story where the heroic defenders fought to the last man? It seems those reports were inaccurate. Note that one of the links to the original version of the story is to a WaPo article, so it isn't just randos on facebook getting it wrong.

This should not be surprising. It's not like WaPo had someone on the scene.

The media can do a good job, given time to develop inside sources, crosscheck, etc, etc. But I wouldn't expect, say, the Ukrainians to accurately state "wow, we're spread really thin in this area, a decent push there and the front will break". That would be dumb - instead they are going to talk up what a thrashing they are giving the Russians. And WaPo doesn't have a reporter out there inspecting foxholes and counting anti-tank missiles to check whether the briefing they are getting is accurate.

There are people out there crosschecking battle reports with sat photos, etc. I think that, within limits, we are getting a reasonably accurate view. But 'not any of the facts' ... is missing a lot of errors that have already come to light, and probably other inaccuracies that haven't come to light.

[bernard11]

I think you misunderstood my comment.

I wasn't saying there were no inaccuracies in the reporting. I'm sure there have been plenty.

What I was trying to say was that the opinion expressed by XY, and his reasons, don't depend on the reporting being wrong. Even if every single report is accurate he might still rationally hold those opinions.

IOW, he doesn't need to criticize the media to justify his opinions, but he does so anyway, with no real basis, and it seems to me that because the reported facts might lead to questioning his stance, on the moral issues at least, he doesn't want to hear them. He can't even agree that Russia is the aggressor.

[Absaroka]

Fair enough.

[Commenter_XY]

No real basis to criticize the media? rotflmao! Yeah, Ok bernard11. Tell you what...we'll just agree to disagree on our assessment and opinion on the degree of bias and accuracy of reporting by American media.

Chag Purim Semeach (early, I know). 🙂

[bernard11]

Satellite imagery? Without comment or explanation?

OK. So you see some trucks, or maybe tanks, with Russian, or Ukrainian, insignia. What have you learned?

At a time where we really need 'un-massaged' information to form our own judgment about Ukraine, we get pablum and narrative from our media. The American people are being manipulated into making Ukraine an American fight. It is not, and it is wrong.

Read this paragraph that you wrote. Carefully.

You think Ukraine is not an American fight. Why? On what information? You must have some.

It looks to me as if your complaint about "pablum and narrative" is based on this other information that you have, from somewhere. Or maybe it's based on the fact that media reporting doesn't support your opinion.

I think you should consider that.

[Cal Cetín]

What about Syria?

Come to think of it, did you criticize the Eritrean invasion of Ethiopia, determined by an international commission to be an act of aggression?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean%E2%80%93Ethiopian_War

[wolfefan]

There are, depending on how you figure it, approximately 44 wars going on at this time. I don't expect that anyone, including both of us, has criticized or commended all of them unless one is being paid specifically to do so. We all comment on what captures our interest, for better or worse. If the Eritrean invasion didn't capture someone's interests, that's fine with me.

[Cal Cetín]

My memory may be flawed, but I don't recall the media feeling obliged to have nonstop coverage of poor beleaguered Ethiopia, the wickedness of the Eritreans, the need to censor Eritrean propaganda, etc.

Let me pose the question to our woke comrades - what accounts for the difference in response to these two wars, one in Europe and one in Africa?

[Eugene Volokh]

I think it's three things:

(1) Russia and Ukraine are part of the developed world, where people expect invasion and war to largely be set aside as a tool of international relations (a goal that we have spent many decades trying to accomplish).

(2) The bad behavior of Putin is much more worrisome to us, because Russia is our and our close allies' neighbor and Putin is in a position to harm us as well. That naturally leads us to focus more on what Russia does than on what Ethiopia does, and thus focus more on its victims.
(3) Ukraine, population 44M, is a practically more important country in the world (though of course not as important as the richer countries of a similar population), which in turn leads us to focus more on what is happening there. The size of the country of course doesn't change the moral calculus, but it does affect the attention we're paying to it.

I appreciate the argument that (1) overlaps with the race of the inhabitants of the countries. Focusing more on the welfare of people like us than people unlike us is, after all, human nature. But my sense is that this is more a class thing than a race thing, so to speak. If North Korea invaded South Korea or China invaded Taiwan, I think we'd have a similar reaction to the Russia-Ukraine one (though of course one can't know for sure).