ukrainian is a dialect of russian and the leader of ukraine is past due on calling elections. he should rightfully be declared a dictator. societies that support democracy should stop supporting ukraine until it holds elections.
but the need to reduce carbon emissions is - unlike ukrainian independence - very real.
yet, the need to normalize relations with russia is also extremely pressing right now and should be the primary priority in not just washington but london, paris and berlin. it may very well be the case that it is within a few years, if the current pro-ukrainian leadership in western europe is replaced in the ongoing or upcoming democratic cycles, and there is a high chance that it will be. canada might be standing on the outside of reality, wearing a "neville chamberlain was right" tshirt, while europe moves towards abandoning ukraine.
how will american voters react?
i have explained here several times that the attempt to tie energy prices to the iran conflict is overstated. i do not support the endless war against russia (the cold war is over), but i do support regime change to rid the world of the terrorist death cult in iran, and i would like to see regime change in saudi arabia as well. energy prices are not up that much, relative to inflation. the real issue is inflation, not the straight of hormuz, and the issue in ukraine is a primary cause of the inflation. energy exports out of hormuz have largely normalized but energy prices haven't adjusted because it isn't really the issue. trump is actually getting the economics right on this; the media is not, it is wrong.
it doesn't seem likely that russia is going to get diesel on to the global market that quickly. the russians are, after all, using a fair amount of diesel in their war operations. if i was putin, i would prioritize a moratorium on fossil fuel exports because it's a threat to national security. the argument is that russia needs the money it gets by selling the fuel, but that argument isn't rooted in fact. due to decades of isolation under communism, russia is a largely self-sufficient society; there is nowhere in the world that could be self-sufficient, if not the russians. they are behind the west on technology and have been since day one, but they import almost nothing. the russian economy doesn't need to sell things to survive. that's why the sanctions have made the russians stronger and not weaker. this is an approach based on bad data and a bad analysis and it's never going to succeed.
nor is it clear that the russians want the republicans to win the midterms. the kremlin actually endorsed kamala harris. that was not reported in the western press, which continues to repeat debunked claims about russian intelligence influencing trump, which came from the clinton campaign in 2016 and are not based on reputable reporting by reputable sources but are just democratic party political propaganda. trump's attack on iran has severely weakened a regional ally of russia, which creates a security threat on it's large caspian sea border area and may potentially destabilize the kazakh buffer state. he also threw them out of syria. the democrats are not likely to have supported that; they withdrew from afghanistan, which very much was in russia's interests. trump has been a much bigger pain in the ass for putin than clinton or harris would have been or than biden was.
so, i'll believe it when i see it.
but i don't expect diesel prices to go down before the midterms.
if they do, however, american voters will be left with a decision. the democrats are running against inflation, but they have not presented anything resembling a concrete solution and there is little reliable data that it is a ballot issue for american voters (who are more concerned about congressional policies on immigration than inflation, which is a private sector concern that congressional legislation has no impact on). it is in fact true that the most substantive thing that could possibly be done to lower inflation is to end the war in ukraine. if it is trump that is taking actionable steps to lower inflation that the democrats in fact are actually opposing, while running against it, how will voters respond to that confusing mess?
if you're really concerned about inflation, you should support the diesel deal (even if it takes time to happen), you should support normalizing ties with russia and you should support ending the war in ukraine and western russia. all the democrats have to offer in response is complaining. they have no policy proposals, no answers that will work.
but my position is that the best way to reduce the effects of diesel prices on inflation is to stop using diesel, not to enforce policies to lower the price of diesel.
i want to encourage consumers on both sides of the north american border to avoid buying foods manufactured using diesel. the prices will help you figure that out. if the item seems expensive, don't buy it - force the store to mark it down first. don't buy it unless it's on sale. force the stores to seek lower price suppliers by forcing them to take losses on items manufactured using diesel.
the grocery industry will never be competitive. basic economic theory makes it clear that the industry is a natural oligopoly and that state interference in the oligopoly to try to force competition will only result in higher prices. rather, it is up to consumers to force the stores to lower prices by refusing to pay them.
the basic fact is that if you pay the price then it's not too high. you can bitch about it, but that's not important. what's important is that you paid it. the store will respond to sales, it won't respond to complaints. if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. it's only consumer behaviour that will adjust prices in the oligopoly, and that's what they teach you in school in the modern era, rather than what they used to teach you in school in the 60s and 70s.
holding to classical economic theory like conservatives do is like holding to newtonian physics. it's wrong. it's been proven wrong; you adjust and learn or you fail. the current economic theory states that it's up to consumers to adjust prices through demand and not up to governments to force them to compete, as competition does not lower prices, it increases them. only shifts in demand have the power to adjust prices, and if you keep paying them, you just tell the stores they can charge what they're charging and they'll keep doing it.
high diesel prices combined with an appropriate consumer response is the only way to eliminate diesel use.
so just stop buying things that are too expensive, until the store marks them down. it's up to us to force those changes. that's how the economy actually works. it's not up to governments to try to force competition. that's not how the economy actually works.