The operative word here is “benefited” not “won” because political debates aren’t scored by an objective standard. Instead, they should be judged by whether or not they achieve the various objectives of different politicians, which frequently varies from candidate to candidate.
By that standard, the top beneficiaries were DeSantis and Haley, in that order.
But before we get to them we will dispense with the also-rans –
There are a number of reasons why Ron DeSantis is not gaining as much ground as expected against Trump.
Trump’s advisers on Ukraine need to be fired because they are lying to him about the probable course of the war.
What they have told him (basically) is that sending weapons to Ukraine is unpopular because the Ukrainians are going to lose, and the public hates losers.
The problem they are creating for Trump is that Russia will lose, where a Russian loss is defined as Ukraine cutting the land bridge between Donetsk and Crimea. This would almost completely restore the January 2022 lines except for the Russian occupation of Northern Luhansk that would, probably, be untenable after they are thrown out of Zaporizhzhia.
When Moscow loses, support for Ukraine will skyrocket across the political spectrum (including among Republicans) and whoever backed Russia will be tarred with their bungled war effort.
At a minimum, the Trump campaign should be considering the possibility of how much of a liability their current position would become in the event Ukraine cuts the land bridge.
At that point, switching completely to backing Ukraine would require verbal gymnastics that would be out of character with Trump’s image as a blunt talker.
A better way to minimize damage from a potential Ukrainian victory in Zaporizhzhia would be to stop mentioning Ukraine, one way or other, just as a precaution in case the war tilts further in favor Ukraine.
The problem is that Trump’s Ukraine advisers are pro-Putin cheerleaders, and the only Americans who still back Putin at this point are absolute morons and/or deranged psychopaths.
Either way, those advisers are not going to tell him the facts which point to Ukraine making a breakthrough across the land bridge, and they won’t tell him until it is too late politically after Ukraine breaches major points in the lines.
Those facts are that Russia’s defenses in Zaporizhzhia are nearing a breaking point because most of their troops have been wasted at the front lines where Ukraine enjoys artillery superiority. This frontline combat has left Russia’s 2nd and 3rd layers of defense largely unmanned with few reserves to guard a wide front, and what reserves that do exist are weak from heavy losses in previous battles.
In addition to being understaffed, the 2nd and 3rd lines do not have adequate artillery support to fend off Ukrainian advances because 1,500 to 2,000 Russian artillery pieces have been destroyed since early June.
There are minefields, but mines are close to useless if they are not backed by direct fire from reserves and indirect fire from artillery.
Also, Russia cannot afford to let Ukraine get another 20 to 30 kilometers closer to the Sea of Azov because that would put most of the province under the control of Ukrainian tube artillery which would make it very difficult for Crimea to be supplied by Russian rail and supply vehicles moving West through Zaporizhzhia.
Russia has little geographic room for error before the land bridge becomes untenable. This may explain why they sent their defense forces to the front: They probably reasoned that if they cannot retreat more than 30 kilometers to the 2nd and 3rd layers of minefields without giving Ukraine (de facto) artillery control of Russia’s Zaporizhzhia supply routes to Crimea, then they might as well throw everything at the first line to try to halt the offensive.
Now that Ukraine has mauled most of those frontline troops it is time for Trump to consider how little room for maneuver his pro-Ukraine advisers have given his own campaign with their stubborn refusal to think ahead about scenarios involving Ukraine destroying the land bridge and what that would mean for 2024.
Prighozin’s uprising has interesting implications for America’s deterrence policies (conventional and nuclear) against Russia.
Because the aftermath left Putin weakened and Prighozin kicked out to a humiliating exile in Belarus (he will be extremely lucky if that’s all that happens to him) suspicion about who the third party was that benefited from the brief uprising naturally falls on Russian intelligence agencies acting with, at least, tacit support from important elements in the Russian military and the business classes.
That suspicion is both obvious and likely owing to the fact Russian intelligence has benefited the most from the outcome which resulted in Putin being put on “probation” of some kind and, thus, maximizing the leverage intelligence now has over the Russian President.
Prigozhin could not have advanced so close to Moscow without significant support from the intelligence agencies and the military.
That he was confident enough to rebel means he coordinated for months with those higher ups; that he moved so quickly means the support he received from the spy departments and military was significant and tightly coordinated.
The only question is whether Russian intelligence initially planned for Prighozin to actually take Moscow, or if they wanted him to get close enough to weaken Putin by shattering his image of internal invulnerability, but have Prighozin fail to grab power in the end and end up humiliating himself.
That Prighozin lasted long enough to harm Putin’s grip on power, yet, was too short lived to take Moscow also suggests the ending was coordinated as much as the beginning because this was the best possible result Russian intelligence could have hoped for to maximize their own internal power.
By having Prighozin fall short they avoided having a new, unknown, quantity enter the Kremlin glowing with triumph and with enough of a “honeymoon” with the public from victory to throw his weight around with entrenched interests in Moscow.
And by leaving Putin in power, but weakened, the intelligence agencies now have an acting President who is dependent on them for survival while he is in office, and whom can be blamed and disposed of as the Russian war in Ukraine fails, at a moment that is most convenient for the spy agencies.
The greatest risk to Russian intelligence was that Putin would retaliate against them. But this has turned out to be difficult for Putin to carry out.
In part this is because Putin cannot trust his intelligence officers to tell him who was behind the uprising in their departments because intelligence, apparently, did not informed Putin about Prighozin’s rebellion until a day, or a few days, beforehand.
What this means for the United States is that if Russian intelligence collectively is running the country then our deterrence should be mainly directed towards Russian intelligence (not so much deterring Putin) from “red line” actions such as using tactical nukes or detonating the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
To deter Russian intelligence (which can expect to survive defeat in Ukraine intact, even if Putin cannot) we should threaten to destroy strategic assets they would want to inherit after the war and the fall of Putin, such as promising to destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet if they crossed those red lines or establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine by targeting Russian warplanes and anti-aircraft systems both inside Ukraine and in Russia.
If the spy agencies are deterred, then Putin would be unlikely to have enough internal authority to take “red line” actions that would put post-war Russian intelligence at an even greater strategic disadvantage than they already face.
Not every lesson from the Russian invasion of Ukraine is clear yet because many things about how the war has been waged are shrouded in mystery – the #1 mystery about the war I want answered, and for which I have not yet seen a plausible explanation for, is how the hell was Ukraine able to deny Russia air supremacy during the first six months of the conflict when Ukraine had limited amounts of non-MANPAD air defense systems donated to it by NATO.
There are, however, already a number of lessons for Taiwan that are clearly applicable to its strategic circumstances.
Enhancing Taiwan’s drone and anti-drone capabilities has been widely mentioned for obvious reasons.
Other lessons aside from drone strategy and tactics that are at least as important are –
Taiwan is correct to increase mass production of anti-ship missiles.
However, the island also needs to have longer range missiles such as Tomahawks and/or Tomahawk equivalents (mostly on mobile ground based launch platforms) that can strike targets at over 1,000 kilometers in order to destroy key logistical and air assets located on mainland Chinese.
The summer Russian offensive was brought to a halt by HIMARS missiles that destroyed Russian logistics and air defense systems. These strikes brought an end to most of Russia’s offensive power and allowed Ukraine to finally launch counter-attacks.
Continue reading “The Military Lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War for Taiwan & America”
The word “should” does not, of course, mean they will.
Federal health agencies should also have never recommended people wear masks outside because there was no evidence the coronavirus could spread merely by having people walk by eachother, except in very crowded urban environments.
Federal health agencies should also have never recommended vaccinated passengers wear masks on planes (and, possibly, not even unvaccinated passengers) because there was no evidence planes, with their excellent air filtration systems, were hotspots for transmission.
Nevertheless, the dietary policy change that should be implemented is to encourage Americans and food producers to switch to low (or moderate) carb diets that are high in all types of fat (except trans-fats because trans is always stupid) and medium to high in meat because the past dietary recommendations to increase carb consumption and reduce fat and meat intake caused the obesity crisis.
Obesity is not caused by fat and meat consumption, anymore than salt (which the FDA once recommended be reduced from the diet) was harmful.
In fact, high salt intake turned out to be safe because the body easily expels excess salt in urine and sweat before an excessive amount can accumulate in the body.
The worst that can happen from consuming a large amount of salt is vomiting, and even that would require an unusual amount of salt intake and result in the excess not entering the blood stream.
As was true of salt, the FDA was also disastrously wrong about reducing fat and meat intake in favor of carbohydrates.
In turn, the obesity epidemic made Americans (especially minorities) more at risk of dying from the coronavirus relative to other First World nations.
This dietary change led to people overeating because the recommended FDA, which is high high in vegetables and carbohydrates at the expense of meat and fat, is not something most Americans can stay on for long because it is unappetizing.
The recommended diet, although it can result in weight loss, is also not, on balance, healthy because it starves the body of a wide variety of amino acids the body can best get from meat such as threonine which is needed for the immune system, arginine which is needed for the nervous system and proper mitochondrial function, and taurine for the brain.
In addition to greater kidney problems caused by obesity, FDA scaremongering reduced egg consumption among the “health conscious” because of pseudoscientific fears of “egg yolks.” Unfortunately eggs are the best source of biotin which is a vitamin that is best sourced from eggs and which cannot be easily replaced from any other food source. Biotin is needed for proper kidney function and processing of proteins.
Since I don’t get a chance to eat eggs very often I take 1,000 micrograms (or 1 milligram) of biotin every month because that is roughly equal to having two to three eggs every day for a month.
Unless one is taking a supplement that reduces biotin stores (like alpha lipoic acid) one should not take more than 1,000 micrograms of biotin a month or else it will cause skin rashes.
All this speaks in favor of adopting a low to medium carb diet.
Anyone who goes on a low or medium carb diet (all of the variations from the Mediterranean diet to the Atkins diet are at least 90% the same) can see for themselves that two weeks of consuming meat and fat while sidelining carbohydrates results in rapid weight loss.
It is also easier for the average American to stay on because meat and fat are more satisfying to stay on than “healthy” diets.
The most difficult part of a low carb diet is replacing potassium levels after reducing one’s intake of potatoes, french fries, and potato chips.
Although high potassium potato products, and all other high potassium foods, can be consumed safely in large amounts in the short term (aside from the long term problems associated with weight gain) potassium supplements are dangerous for the heart if taken frequently.
Since potassium supplementation from capsules is complicated to do safely another food source must be found.
What I have used as a potassium substitute ever since I went low/medium carb years ago are salted, roasted, sunflower kernels.
Sunflower kernels are high in potassium, other nutrients like B Vitamins, and other electrolytes besides potassium.
They are also a reasonably tasty, salty snack that go well with a diet coke or wine.
The FDA should also recommend that food producers and restaurants reduce the amount of sugar and carbohydrates their customers eat.
Some menu proposals would be –
Iron levels are also too high in the American diet because it (unlike Europe’s diet) is fortified in foods such as cereals.
See the various health problems caused by excess iron intake here and here.
In reality, the body gets along fine with minimal amounts of iron (which all cells need to use their DNA) while still avoiding anemia.
The levels where iron is admitted by doctors to be toxic are at levels that are only moderately above where the FDA considers to be an acceptable range – or, at least, toxic to every human cell except cancer cells which are known to have very high iron demands relative to normal cells because cancer cellular mechanisms require iron to use their DNA at a more rapid rate than what healthy cells need from iron in order to use their DNA.
Aside from cancer, high iron levels are also associated with a variety of chronic diseases such as arthritis.
The health recommendation of the FDA should therefore be –
They can get this done by going to a blood donation center (I myself am an American Red Cross blood donor who donates whole blood once or twice a year to keep my iron stores at the lower end of the safe range).
Or, if they don’t qualify as a blood donor, then get a therapeutic whole blood draw from a hematologist at least once every two years. They will draw the same amount of blood that would be taken at a blood donation center except that the blood will be disposed of instead of being sent to a blood bank.
Remember to always ask for a whole blood draw, and not a platelet donation, because only a whole blood draw will reduce iron levels.
As the war in Ukraine enters its second phase the following are the best game theory derived options for the US to adopt (followed by the reasoning for them) –
1) The US announces that the US Air Force will intervene as a full aerial combatant in Ukraine in the event Russia uses chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine. To enhance the credibility of this deterrent the US should move extra air power to Europe.
2) The US announces that we will “probably retaliate with nuclear weapons” (in exactly those words) if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. The US should say nothing else about what, exact, form this potential nuclear response might take.
I’m going to take a wild guess that the Belarusian Army is not going to be sent to take Kiev.
If the Belarusian military (which is small) was reluctant to go in during the first two weeks when it was more plausible that Russia would eventually reach Kiev then they certainly are not going in by themselves after Ukraine just shattered some of the most elite Russian formations.
Since Ukraine has demonstrated so ably that invading their country is an excellent way to get oneself killed I know that if I were a Belarusian soldier I would take my chances with mutiny instead of entering that tiger cage.
Supreme Theater of Operations Commander – Colonel Kurtz
Principal Logistics Officer – Colonel Klink
Commander of the Russian Air Force – Robert Stack (Neutralized in mid-production by Ukrainian snipers while directing emergency landing traffic at Kherson airport)
Head of Russian Intelligence – Lieutenant Frank Drebin (formerly of the Los Angeles Police Department)
Supervising Consultant to Russian Talk Show Hosts – Larry King
Music Editing – Pink Floyd
Manager of Occupied Ukrainian Nuclear Facilities – Homer Simpson
Chief Financial Officer of the Russian Armed Forces – Diamond Joe Quimby
Director of Humanitarian Relief Corridors – Hannibal Lecter
Minister of Chechen Propaganda Videos – Nelson Muntz
Lead Hostage Negotiator – Hans Gruber
Attorney General of the Russian Federation – Lionel Hutz
Disaster Recovery Specialist – Dr. Strangelove
Chief of Russian Special Operations Forces – Larry David
Kremlin Spokesman – Troy McClure
Casting Director – Vladimir Putin
The strategic reasoning for why the US Air Force should destroy Iran’s nuclear program is perfectly obvious.
Of course, since the order would have to be given by Joe Biden the actual task of destroying the Iranian program will, in practice, probably have to fall to the Israeli Air Force because the Biden Administration excels at not doing what it should.
For example, the Biden White House should have given Polish Mig-29s to Ukraine because it makes absolutely no sense for America to, on the one hand, be giving Ukrainian forces most of the US military’s inventory of Javelin and Stinger missiles while, on the other hand, drawing an arbitrary line at giving Ukraine fighter jets.
Yet, in an impressive display of pure Progressive stupidity, the Biden Administration refused to give Ukraine extra Mig-29s while at the same time it continues to send Kiev billions of dollars worth of other weapon systems.
Unfortunately, the Israeli Air Force cannot destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities nearly as easily as American bombers can.
Nevertheless, Israel should take close note of how Ukraine is showing the world how a determined military can perform brilliantly despite facing seemingly impossible odds.
Just because a successful strike on Iran’s nuclear program is harder to execute for Israel than it would be for America is no reason for Israel to be complacent.
All that means is that Israel’s war planners and corps of engineers need to be extra creative at overcoming the various hurdles to an airstrike – very much like Ukraine’s military has been extra creative in their challenging campaign.
But whether Iran’s nuclear ambitions are stopped by Israel or America does not change the fact it is very much in the strategic interests of the United States for the the risk of a nuclear Iran to be destroyed permanently, not deferred with a weak nuclear agreement.
The reason is quite simply that destroying the possibility of an Iranian bomb will make it easier for America to build a strong deterrent against China.
This is because Iran without nuclear weapons is much easier to contain than an Iran with nuclear weapons.
If Iran acquires nukes (and even if it has no intention of ever using them) they will be able to engage in the type of nuclear blackmail and brinkmanship that Russia and North Korea have engaged in for decades.
Nuclear weapons would give Iran the power to threaten to use them in order to gain extra negotiation leverage for its bad behavior, much as Russia is using the mere threat of a nuclear strike as negotiation leverage to minimize how much support NATO is willing to give Ukraine.
If Iran had this extra leverage the United States would need to divert extra military resources to the Middle East to deter a nuclear Iran because Iran would be able to engage more freely in non-nuclear terrorist and conventional attacks in the region because their arsenal would give them much greater freedom to engage in all sorts of mischief and threats (like Russia and North Korea) while being able to deter American conventional retaliation.
This extra deterrent in the Middle East would draw US forces away from Asia and would have to be significantly larger than what America already has deployed across the Middle East.
But if Iran’s program is destroyed before they develop nuclear weapons then America would be able to free up extra resources to buildup its forces around Japan, Australia, and other friendly Asian nations, in order to deter China; although the US should keep a moderate level of forces in the Middle East in order to prevent a strategic power vacuum from developing in this oil rich region of the world.
And the best way to maintain a strong deterrent against China is for either Israel or America to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, instead of relying on a flimsy, short term nuclear deal that Iran will constantly try to avoid abiding by whenever possible.
With an airstrike that obliterates Iran’s nuclear facilities America will not need to rely at all on a completely untrustworthy Iran to keep its word because Iran will have no power to create them.
Pragmatically Distributed 