22 - What Can We Do to Assist Ukraine?
As individuals of good conscience and antagonists of war, opponents of the needless slaughter of innocents to satisfy Putin’s vanity and Putin’s pretensions of grandeur, there is too little, alas, that we can do directly to help Ukrainians. Some Americans have become soldiers alongside Ukrainian partisans; many others of us are contributing financially to experienced charities like Mercy Corps, Save the Children, UNICEF, and Spirit of America that are actively succoring internally displaced persons and refugees.
Closer to home, additionally, Americans can emulate what the Economist suggests Europeans ought to do in order to contribute meaningfully to Putin’s defeat. “What is startling,” the Economist remarks in words that are relevant as well for North Americans, “is how little is being asked of” citizens, of you and me. Although we would be inconvenienced (mightily, perhaps), we could turn down our thermostats by a degree or more in order to consume less fuel. American did that in the 1970s, when President Carter tellingly wore a cardigan in the White House. According to the Economist, lowering European thermostats by one degree centigrade would save 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas over a year, the equivalent of one month’s worth of gas from Russia. Someone, but not me, must know how much heating oil and natural gas the U. S. could save for transfer to Europe if we did the equivalent. Or as a wise public-spirited citizen of Lexington, MA urged his neighbors last week, turning thermostats down would at least leave more fuels to ship to Europe to replace Russian gas..
The Economist and the civic-minded Lexington resident also advocate lowering speed limits on freeways and motorways, again to reduce oil consumption. The Economist urges a 10 mph drop, but even 5 mph slower would help moderate Europe’s dependence on Russian energy supplies, and also cut Putin’s incoming income stream.
We could all work at home even more than we now do, resist going back into offices and commuting (which uses up energy sources). We could (a radical idea) forbid auto use on Sundays. Doing all of that in Europe, the Economist calculates, would reduce fuel needs from Russia by about 20 percent, and thus cash for Putin’s war. Little Lithuania has already ceased buying Russian natural gas, the first European nation to go cold turkey. After the extent of Russia’s horrific new atrocities near Kyiv became known on Sunday, Germany’s defense minister indicated that her country should also stop receiving Russian gas. Outrage is giving way to retaliation.
In the 1970s, compelled by the Arab oil embargo to scrimp, Europe and North America accepted discomfort and deep chills. Some of us remember lining up in long queues for gas at the pumps. Germans accepted speed limits on the autobahn, France limited the heating of houses, television broadcasts ceased at 11 pm (presumably to encourage Europeans to turn out their lights), and daylight saving time became permanent. Ed Dolan wants Lexingtonians, denizens of the cradle of the revolution, to follow suit, with its town-wide concomitant revolution in the use of fuel subsequently copied throughout at least New England.
If Ukrainians are dying to protect democratic values and to beat back and perhaps defeat the onrush of (truly) fascist encroachers from Russia, certainly we can lower our house heat and drive less? The Ukrainians are making major sacrifices. We, as Dolan urges his fellow townspeople, ought to sacrifice substantially as well.
Doubtless there are other ingenious industrial and military ways to reduce American oil and gas consumption, the better to diminish Europe’s dependence on Russia. Possibly Europe and the U. S. can ask air carriers to fly less often. We can limit street lighting in certain areas and regions. Office towers can turn off their lights. We did those kinds of things in the 1970s. On the assumption that every little bit benefits Ukraine by slicing Russian export earnings and therefore what it can spend on the needless conflagration in Ukraine, there are myriad opportunities to express solidarity with Ukraine with actions, not words.
President Biden has found a way to ship Russian-built tanks to support Ukraine’s defensive war effort. Washington is also giving $300 billion worth of drones and laser-guided missiles to Ukraine. Presumably, the U. S. is additionally conveying certain kinds of surveillance information and battlefield intelligence to the Ukrainian fighting forces. Given that the Biden administration has done a laudable job preemptively releasing information about Russian military moves and Putin’s discomforts with his advising team, Washington must be able to find further clever ways to assist Ukrainian warriors without putting American boots on the ground or starting World War III.
The war in Ukraine is not about to cease soon. Russia has no shortage of missiles or bombs. Nor has Russian public opinion, heavily controlled at the most relaxed of times and zealously guarded now, even begun to turn against Putin. Body bags are not being returned to cities and villages within Russia. Nor is it likely that Putin, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, or other generals will drop their guns and flee from combat as so many conscripts are said to be doing. Buttressed by even more mercenaries from Syria than I knew about on Friday, the battle for Ukraine is likely to be long and negotiations largely desultory until the war enters a more conclusive phase.
Now the possibilities include: 1) that doleful moment when all of Ukraine is rubble, 2) the Ukrainian forces run out of food, 3) one side or the other pleads for peace and both agree to a ceasefire, 4) Russians rush from the battlefield for safety at home, or 5) insiders remove Putin and end hostilities. Given that the war will be slog, with immensely more human suffering, we who are distant from combat must do our part. Lower thermostats, drive and fly less, and – until spring comes – sacrifice for Ukraine and for freedom.