The Economist March 26th 2022 Leaders 11understands that the security of Europe is at stake in Ukraine.
The question is whether that success can survive the tests that
lie ahead. At home, destructive political partisanship is once
more rearing its head. In Europe, the coalition that America so
carefully stitched together is beginning to fray.
America’s innovation began before the war, with the unpre
cedented release of intelligence. Along with Britain, the Biden
administration issued detailed, uptotheminute warnings
about Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s borders, wouldbe
provocations, the plan of attack and a blueprint for a puppet gov
ernment. This robbed Mr Putin of the power to disorientate that
served him so well in the seizure of Crimea in2014. The supply has continued in battle. Infor
mation from intercepted communications,
nato aircraft and satellites is rapidly given to
Ukrainian forces, who use it for targeting.
The agility was on display when America
changed course in the opening phase of the war.
Mr Putin was not alone in thinking that Kyiv
would fall within days. The Biden administra
tion offered Volodymyr Zelensky safe passage out of the capital.
Ukraine’s president vowed to stay even as his forces repelled
Russian paratroopers. America and its allies responded with
more weapons and fresh sanctions.
And natohas demonstrated resolve. In 2019 Emmanuel Mac
ron, France’s president, warned that it was suffering “brain
death”. Today it is reinforcing its eastern flank. Germany, its sec
ondwealthiest member, has overturned decades of timid de
fence policy by agreeing to give Ukraine arms and pledging to in
crease spending. In its wholehearted leadership of nato, Amer
ican diplomacy has recovered from the lows of the Trump years.
The fact that the war has lasted so long is an endorsement of
Mr Biden’s support. But, as it drags on, sustaining that support is
becoming harder. At home some Republicans have taken to
blaming Mr Biden for the war, arguing however implausibly that
the real cause of the invasion was Kabul and American acquies
cence over a German gas pipeline coming from Russia. They ac
cuse Mr Biden of being weak.
In the long run, partisanship is a grave threat to American in
fluence abroad. Mr Biden’s best riposte to his critics is to throw
his efforts into dealing with the other, far more urgent political
problem, which lies in Europe. This is the first sign of weariness
in the coalition helping Ukraine withstand the
Russian army (see Europe section).
Ukraine says it is short of arms. There have
been pledges, including this week from Britain,
but supplies could arrive too late. Ukraine also
complains that nato’s distinction between de
fensive weapons, such as antitank missiles,
and offensive weapons, such as aircraft, is
meaningless when the invader is bent on de
struction. Diplomatic sources accuse Germany and Hungary, in
particular, of standing in the way of extra sanctions.
All this is becoming an urgent problem. Mariupol, a city with
a population of 400,000 before the invasion, is being razed to
the ground by Russian artillery. Civilians, including children,
have been deported to Russia. Mr Biden has warned that Mr Pu
tin may be about to order the use of chemical or biological weap
ons. As Russian atrocities mount, Ukraine will need more help.
When Mr Biden meets European heads of government he will
have to stiffen their resolve. If hefailsto unite his allies, his good
work will have been squandered.nG
overnments thatare trying to shield voters from soaring
energy and fuel costs are coalescing around a simple idea:
help people buy petrol. This week Rishi Sunak, Britain’s chancel
lor, cut fuel duty by 5p ($0.07) per litre, a 9% reduction, for a
year—the most ever in cash terms. From April 1st France will re
bate 15 cents ($0.16) per litre of fuel for four months. Many other
European countries including Italy and Sweden have also an
nounced cuts. Last year Japan introduced a fuel subsidy of ¥
($0.04) a litre, which was recently raised to ¥25. In America two
states have suspended their petrol taxes and a bill has been in
troduced in Congress to do the same to the federal levy.
These tax cuts are a mistake. They will waste money and
make it harder to wean the rich world off fossil fuels. There are
better ways to help people cope with rising energy prices.
Petrol taxes, like all levies on transactions, affect both buyers
and sellers. When taxes fall, buyers pay a lower total price. As a
result they demand more fuel, which encourages sellers to push
pretax prices higher. The exact division of the benefits between
consumers and producers is debated, but one study of a petrol
tax holiday in Illinois and Indiana in 2000 found that consum
ers enjoyed only 70% of the upside.
That means today’s fueltax cuts are wasteful. Governmentscould spend the same amount of money on other policies to
help households without suffering a 30% leakage. It also makes
the policies perverse, because the producers who benefit in
clude Russia, whose oil Europe continues to buy, despite its in
vasion of Ukraine. Although the tax policies of any one small
country are unlikely to affect global oil prices much, many coun
tries cutting fuel levies at once will boost demand on a global
scale, helping to fill Russia’s coffers.
Governments should be trying to reduce the demand for fuel,
not stoke it. The price of petrol tends not to have a rapid effect on
how much people drive, because many trips are unavoidable
(see Free exchange). But that may be changing as working from
home has given many people a daily choice about whether to
commute to the office. In the short term, maintaining fuel taxes
would help wean Europe off Russian oil, starving Russia’s econ
omy of foreign currency (see Charlemagne). Even with sanctions
as they are, the energy industry is warning that Europe may soon
need to ration diesel, which is becoming scarce.
In the long term fuel duties lead people to switch to electric
cars or public transport, reducing carbon emissions. They also
mean that driving bears more of the other costs it imposes on
society, such as congested roads and dirty air. These goals areRather than cutting taxes on fuel, governments should support household incomesWhen duty falls
Fuel taxes