Daily Punditry for 6/3/2025
Your punditry, fresh, hot, and stuffed with goodness
Education costs money. But then so does ignorance.
Heels Up Harris Might Be Returning to Politics and Let’s Just Say Her Fellow Democrats Are Less Than Enthused–Sir Claus Moser
Some Democrats in South Carolina and California are largely lukewarm about the prospect of former Vice President Kamala Harris returning to politics, Politico reported on Sunday.
Democrats on both coasts did not express much enthusiasm at the prospect of Harris either running for California’s governor’s mansion in 2026 or launching a presidential bid in 2028, according to Politico. The article comes after recent reports that Harris is considering whether to launch a bid to succeed term-limited Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2026 or make a third consecutive bid for the White House in the 2028 presidential race.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t do or teach become politicians for life.
Although, to be fair, Harris has no skills, and is probably too old to return to the one thing she was once supposedly good at with Willy Brown. I mean, would you patronize her Only Fans page?
More Details: Kerch Bridge Explosion In Crimea, What Did Trump White House Know?
Update(1208ET): More details have emerged of what marks the third major Ukrainian sabotage bombing of the key bridge linking the Russian mainland to the Crimean peninsula, as the pace of the war heats up:
Ukraine said it attacked the Crimean Bridge with explosives as Russia closed traffic on the route linking the annexed Black Sea peninsula with the Russian mainland.
Agents planted mines on underwater supports and detonated them on Tuesday, the Ukrainian Security Service, known as the SBU, said in a statement on Telegram. The SBU said the operation took place over several months and left the bridge in an emergency condition, which couldn’t be independently verified.
Ukrainian intelligence over the weekend was busy blowing up other civilian bridges inside Russia as well, resulting in the deaths of seven people, and scores more casualties, as we detailed.
This on the heels of the attack on several Russian military airfields deep within the borders of the country, carried out by drones smuggled into Russia and launched from 18-wheeler semis.
Former top Trump adviser Steve Bannon is worried.
Steve Bannon didn’t waste time with pleasantries.
Speaking with Chris Cuomo, he opened with a dire warning: the United States is heading toward a global catastrophe, and most Americans have no idea how close we really are.
“Chris, we’re being sucked into a kinetic Third World War right now, that’s going to dwarf the 20th century’s First and Second World War. Inextricably we’ve been drawn in every day,” Bannon said.
The trigger, he argued, was Ukraine’s recent and audacious drone strike deep inside Russian territory—an operation that reportedly destroyed 40% of Russia’s strategic nuclear bombers.
According to Bannon, the attack wasn’t just bold, it was reckless.
“They attacked part of the strategic triad of the Russians… They took out 40% of Russia’s strategic nuclear bombers. This is something Curtis LeMay would never think of.”
But what stunned Bannon even more than the scale of the strike was what didn’t happen: there was no warning.
“What the Ukrainians did, and what the White House has said is that they never got a heads up,” he said.
“It was audacious, it was bold—but we’re sponsoring this. We’re funding it. We’re cutting deals. And now they’re dragging us in.”
That, Bannon warned, could have consequences far beyond Eastern Europe.
“Did they think they can go in and really attack into Russian territory and drag us into conflict with Russia that could metastasize?”
What’s worrisome about this is the seeming helplessness of both global leaders. Putin doesn’t seem to be able to prevent these attacks, and Trump doesn’t seem to even be in the loop on them. When you have the leaders of the two nations with the biggest nuclear arsenals on the planet, who happen to be engaged in a proxy war over a corrupt shithole like Ukraine, which is run by a toot toilet like Zelensky, both appearing uninformed, ineffective, and prisoners of events apparently beyond their control, you have a recipe for disaster on an existential scale.
You don’t want people starting to ask who is in charge in a volatile situation like this. Both Putin’s and Trump’s primary stock in trade is their reputations for superb leadership. That reputation cannot survive them appearing to be led around by their noses by the kakicratic dwarf of Kiev. Appearance matters.
When strong men start to look weak, wolves begin to circle, and even yapdogs like the yurpeens start to grow teeth. Trump and Putin need to find a way to fix this matter, and they need to do it quickly, before it metastasizes.
Hegseth Says US Ready to ‘Fight and Win’ a War With China Over Taiwan
I don’t know what he’s smoking, but if I still did that sort of thing, I’d want some of it.
During his speech on Saturday, Hegseth took aim at China over a range of issues, including Taiwan and the South China Sea. “China seeks to become a hegemonic power in Asia. No doubt. It hopes to dominate and control too many parts of this vibrant and vital region,” he said.
Hegseth accused China of wanting to “fundamentally alter the region’s status quo” and said Beijing’s “behavior towards its neighbors and the world is a wake-up call.”
This is pretty rich, coming from a guy whose boss is trying to bludgeon his way into control of both Canada and Greenland, a real estate grab far more audacious than anything currently on China’s to-do list.
Then there is this:
As of 2025, the number of foreign military bases maintained by China and the United States varies significantly based on available data:
China: China officially maintains one confirmed overseas military base in Djibouti, operational since August 2017, primarily for logistical support and counter-piracy operations. Some sources suggest China may have a presence or potential bases in other locations (e.g., Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base, Pakistan’s Gwadar, or Tajikistan), but these are not officially acknowledged as full military bases, often described as dual-use facilities or access agreements. Estimates range from 1 to 10 bases or strategic strongpoints, with most sources confirming only Djibouti.
United States: The U.S. maintains a far larger network, with estimates ranging from 700 to over 900 overseas military bases across more than 70–80 countries. This includes large bases like Ramstein Air Base in Germany and Camp Humphreys in South Korea, as well as smaller "lily pad" sites. The exact count varies due to differing definitions (e.g., including temporary or cooperative security locations). For example, a 2021 source cites ~750 bases in 80 countries, while a 2025 source suggests over 900, including unconfirmed or secretive sites.
Comparison: The U.S. operates a vastly larger network of overseas bases (700–900+) compared to China’s single confirmed base in Djibouti, with a few additional potential sites under development. This reflects the U.S.’s global military presence versus China’s more limited, emerging overseas footprint.
The US has managed to “win” some major war game scenarios against China, most notably one run the the CSIS back in 2023, which I reported on here, and here:
Here’s what they defined as “victory.”
China’s strikes on Japanese bases and U.S. surface ships cannot change the result: Taiwan remains autonomous.
There is one major assumption here: Taiwan must resist and not capitulate. If Taiwan surrenders before U.S. forces can be brought to bear, the rest is futile.
This defense comes at a high cost. The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of servicemembers. Such losses would damage the U.S. global position for many years. While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services.
It’s a “We had to destroy Taiwan in order to save it.” Further keep in mind that the games were played based on the conflict ending after a couple of weeks. This artificial time limit begs the question of what happens after two months, or a year? China will still be there, its vast manufacturing plant essentially undamaged.
I ended my analysis with:
But this is not to say that merely because the invasion was defeated, China was defeated. The PRC is a vast nation, with an economy larger than that of the US, a more effective industrial base, particularly in the manufacture of military weaponry, and none of these scenarios posited anything that would change that relative advantage. And while many of the scenarios predicted the destruction of essentially the entire PLAN fleet, they don’t provide any assurance that the US won’t be forced by its own losses (which could have massive repercussions both domestically and internationally) to leave a shattered Taiwan fighting on by itself. How Taiwan manages to resupply its own military in the face of continued bombardments from Chinese ground-based assets or defend against a renewed amphibious assault using different carriers - say, the Hong Kong ferry fleet - while its own people are starving and dying in the dark, a result almost inevitable when a modern high-tech society collapses more or less overnight, is left unexamined.
And that, I submit, is a mistake. While the authors understand the potential longer-term ramifications of their conclusions, we must keep in mind that the stated purpose of these games was to provide policymakers and the general public with an anchor point from which to discuss the defense of Taiwan aainst an amphibious PRC invasion.
Policymakers too often, and the general public almost invariably, will look to take the most obvious and simple conclusions and use them as the sum total of their understanding of the situation. Hence, we could end up with the primary takeaway from these games as being “We win. They lose.”
And that is absolutely the wrong message that should be sent. What we should be debating is an entirely different proposition: If a military defense of Taiwan results in a temporary and short-lived defeat of the invaders, but destroys Taiwan as a functioning modern state, destroys much of the US military power in the Pacific, devastates the American economy, relegates the US to status as a second-rate military power when compared to, say, Russia, shatters the power of the political leadership in the US, (we do not handle military defeat well, especially when the fact of it cannot be avoided), and a number of other, possibly even greater, unanticipated and unintended consequences, is this a project we really want or need to undertake?
I submit that the overall risk-reward calculus is not tilted in our favor. That given, the last message we should want to take from these games is “America Number One! Ooorah!”
Unfortunately, I suspect the odds of that happening are quite high. Therefore, my judgement is that the potential benefit of these games is outweighed by the likelihood that they will warp, rather than aid, correct policy decisions and the fostering of intelligent, realistic debate among the American people and their leadership.
And that is precisely what we are lacking today, not just about China, but Russia as well. Bannon is right to be worried. Frankly, we all should be worried. Unfortunately, since ignorance is bliss, we don’t - and won’t - worry about any of this. Even worse, apparently Trump isn’t worried either, because even in his case, ignorance may be bliss.