Moths as good as mice for many drug tests

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Who would have imagined that moths are as good as mice for many drug tests?

Biologists have discovered that certain key cells in mammals and insects react in the same way when attacked by infections and produce similar chemical reactions to fight them off.

The findings could mean up to 80 percent of the mice used for testing new pharmaceutical compounds may no longer be needed, offering drug firms sizeable time and cost savings.

“It is now routine practice to use insect larvae to perform initial testing of new drugs and then to use mice for confirmation tests,” said Kevin Kavanagh, a biologist from the National University of Ireland, who presented his research at a Society for General Microbiology meeting in Edinburgh.

“This method of testing is quicker, as tests with insects yield results in 48 hours whereas tests with mice usually take 4 to 6 weeks. And it is much cheaper too.”

Kavanagh and his colleagues found that neutrophils, white blood cells that form part of the mammalian immune system, and haematocytes, cells that carry out similar work in insects, react in the same way to infecting microbes.
Both the insect and mammalian cells produce chemicals with a similar structure which move to the surface of the cells to kill the invading microbe, they found. The immune cells then enclose the microbe and release enzymes to break it down.

“We used insects instead of mammals for measuring how pathogenic a bacterium or fungus is, and found a very good correlation between the results in mammals and insects,” Kavanagh said in a telephone interview.

“The reason for this … is that the innate immune system of mammals is almost 90 percent similar to that of insects.”

Sleepy snow leopard cub Yukichi

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Is it wrong that I see adorable sleepy snow leopard cub Yukichi, and I immediately think, “He doesn’t use Windows!”

(Max OS X Snow Leopard is now available.)

Four-Way Breakdown

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

There are at least four ways that survival fighting breaks down, Rory Miller says. The first is physical, the essence of combat — applying force and avoiding it from your opponent — but Miller does not spend much time writing or thinking about this:

The real reason is that I have rarely seen anyone with any training who was crushed in an assault because of a lack of physical skills. Almost all simply choked. They knew what to do, they couldn’t make themselves do it. So the physical side of it, in my opinion, is a critical skill to success, but does nothing to prevent catastrophic failure. That comes from elsewhere.

The second is cognitive — strategy and tactics, evaluation and planning:

Weapons common or rare? Expect multiple opponents or duels? Ambushes or matches? In each of these pairs, the one you emphasize (no one discounts one of them entirely, though people sometimes argue as if they do) will drive how you move and what you teach.

There is a big potential for failure here if the students are led to believe that the strategy and system they are learning is perfect, or even good, for all situations. Tactics and movements from an unarmed duel aren’t the same as an armored medieval battlefield or an ambush from behind at a urinal.

But it’s an easy fix, to an extent (and this is not a guarantee of success, nothing is): From day one students are taught to keep their eyes open, don’t count on anything, and be ready to adapt.

The third is emotional or spiritual:

Can you act when you can’t begin to predict the outcome? Maybe it’s a level of faith, maybe confidence, maybe ignorance and maybe those are all aspects of the same thing. Is your instinct when you are pressed or scared or someone screams to deal with it yourself? Or do you look around for someone else to deal with it? Or pretend it’s not happening? People have been brutally beaten and some have probably died curled into a little ball hoping mommy or the cops or the cavalry will come save them.

This is the source of a lot of catastrophic failure, and the source is strictly internal.

The fourth is also emotional — and social. Miller calls it the social screaming monkey level:

It is the social mind that wants to put everything in a social context — does this person trying to kill me hate me? Did I do something to deserve this? Why is this happening to me?

The thing about this is that tries to deal with a violent situation from the rules and point of view of a regular world that doesn’t countenance violence. It is just like trying to cling to the plane after you have already jumped. It’s too late for that. The monkey mind insists on trying to analyze a social solution to what has become a physical problem. Right here is where a lot of the freezing and the catastrophic failures happen.

Is Obama being mau-maued in Afghanistan?

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Is Obama being mau-maued in Afghanistan?

Tom Wolfe’s classic study of War on Poverty handouts to “community organizers” in inner city San Francisco pointed out that most of the demonstrations and confrontations were largely staged to get money out of the government:
Going downtown to mau-mau the bureaucrats got to be the routine practice in San Francisco. The poverty program encouraged you to go in for mau-mauing. They wouldn’t have known what to do without it…. That was one reason why Summer Jobs was such a big deal…. Nevertheless, there was some fierce mau-mauing that went on over summer jobs, especially in 1969, when the O.E.O. started cutting back funds and the squeeze was on. Half of it was sheer status. There were supposed to be strict impartial guidelines determining who got the summer jobs — but the plain fact was that half the jobs were handed out organization by organization, according to how heavy your organization was. If you could get twenty summer jobs for your organization and somebody else got five, then you were four times the aces they were…

Reading the Afghanistan War website of Michael Yon, an ex-Green Beret who has been an embedded reporter in Iraq and Afghanistan, for some reason got me thinking about Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. Especially the parts where people who are likely Taliban-affiliated show up at the British Army base where Yon is embedded and demand medical care for a wound no doubt suffered fighting the Brits or show up demanding compensation for their house that got blown up because guys were shooting at the Brits from it.

For a lot of the Pashtuns, no matter what side they nominally are on, the war seems to be not just about killing people and breaking things (which, being Pashtuns, they consider good clean fun), but, also, it’s a living. If the war ever ends, will the rest of the world continue to funnel money and weapons into Afghanistan? Will they then have to get, like, jobs?

Moreover, consider the lessons the Afghans likely drew from the Iraq “Surge.” Here in the U.S., the received lesson is that adding 15% more soldiers made all the difference, but what actually made the difference was what I’d been advocating all along: bribe the Sunni rebels to stop fighting us and start fighting the foreign fundamentalists.

If you are an Afghan, you probably figure that the same logic will play out in Afghanistan as in Iraq: the more problems you cause the Americans now, the more they will bribe you to switch sides, the same as the more you intimidated federal poverty bureaucrats in 1969, the biggerthe bribe they paid you.

Does Obama grasp that? This is one case where his pre-Presidential career experience ought to equip him to understand what’s going on.

Movie Studios See a Threat in Growth of Redbox

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Redbox offers $1 DVD rentals through its bright-red vending machines — and, as always, Hollywood feels threatened:

“These machines are to the video industry what the Internet was to the music business — disaster,” said Ted Engen, president of the Video Buyers Group, a trade organization for 1,700 local rental stores.

Mr. Engen is enlisting lawmakers to attack Redbox for renting R-rated movies to underage viewers — the machines simply ask customers to confirm that they are 18 or older by pressing a button — and trying to rally the Screen Actors Guild and other unions.

“It’s going to kill the industry,” said Gary Cook, business manager for UA Local 78, which represents studio plumbers.

Redbox is riding several trends:

For starters, the dismal economy has made people think twice about buying DVDs, especially as the likes of Redbox have made renting easier. Consumers are also tiring of the clutter: The average American household with a DVD player now has a library of 70 DVDs, according to Adams Media Research.

Over all, DVD sales are down 13.5 percent for the first half of 2009 compared to the first half of 2008, according to the Digital Entertainment Group, a trade organization. Studios say some new titles are selling 25 percent fewer copies than expected. Rental revenue is up about 8 percent over the same period, according to the group.

Retailers, struggling to keep people shopping, have realized that having a DVD kiosk in a store creates foot traffic, making it easier for companies like Redbox to sign wide-ranging installation agreements. Some partners, like Walgreens, have offered discounts that essentially make rentals free.

Redbox currently buys DVDs wholesale, rents them repeatedly for $1 per day, and then sells the DVDs into the used-DVD market. This upsets the studios:

By signing deals with Redbox, Paramount and Sony got the kiosk operator to agree to destroy their discs rather than resell them.

What happened to Second Life?

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

What happened to Second Life?, Cringely asks:

Facebook is hot right now and Second Life is not, and some of that comes down to the difference between fantasy and reality. Second Life is a fantasy environment — an EverQuest without the quest — and that’s the problem. It has the heavy processing requirements of a game without the rich textural depth of a Tolkein or even of real life.

Facebook, being tied to the real lives of the people involved in it, never runs out of anything, whether it is server power (minimal requirements there. at least in comparison to Second Life) or stuff to talk about. Second Life is barren in comparison. By attempting to imitate life, it pales beside the real thing.

Not Kalashnikovs, but Kalakovs

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad of the The Guardian interviews an Afghani smuggler:

“We can do around 50 kilos per week, and it’s increasing,” he said. “Two years ago we only smuggled heroin from the local area.” Opium grown locally in Badakhshan was processed into heroin in labs in the area, then transported across the border to Tajikistan, he said. A kilo of heroin in Afghanistan was worth $2,500; in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, it was worth $5,000. “In Moscow,” he said, “they say that a kilo of heroin can make a hundred thousand dollars.”

Hekmat also receives drugs from other parts of Afghanistan: with the war being fought so hard in the south, smugglers from those regions were looking for new routes for their produce. However, even in this small border town in northern Afghanistan, he is feeling the pinch of the global economic crisis.

“Heroin was very good last year, but there is a crisis in the economy all over the world, so there is less demand coming from Russia and Europe.”

He drew deeply on his joint and held the smoke. When he breathed out his eyes disappeared momentarily behind a haze of hashish.

This is the portion that interests David Hambling of Wired‘s Danger Room:

“The fortunes are to be made in weapons,” he said. “Prices are doing very well. If you bring in $20,000-worth over a month, you can make a profit of $5,000.”

Kalashnikovs, I presumed.

“No, Kalashnikovs are very cheap. They cost only $400. Sometimes the Tajiks buy them from us and we get them from the Chinese. But it’s the Kalakov everyone wants.” Kalakov is the Afghan name for a new model of Kalashnikov that is lighter and uses smaller bullets.

“The Taliban like it because it pierces body armour.” Hekmat tapped at his chest to demonstrate and showed me a small bullet. “They cost $700 in Dushanbe and we sell them for $1,100. There is an extra charge of $150 if you want the weapons delivered in the south.”

If he was paid the extra, Hekmat would arrange for them to be taken to Baghlan province north of Kabul, to be handed over to the southern Taliban.

“The prices are so high now, a year ago the same Kalokov sold for $700 in Afghanistan.”

As Hambling notes, this should come as no surprise:

The Soviets designed the 5.45mm round specifically to fight against Western armies who might have body armor, and have upgraded the standard bullets since its introduction in 1974. The original bullet had a mild steel core and a lead tip; a harder steel core was introduced in 1987 and this was enlarged in 1992 to create the 7N10 “improved penetration” round. This will punch through a Kevlar vest, but not hard ceramic inserts.

The AK-74 round has better penetration than the Russian 7.62×39mm round it replaced, as well as improved accuracy. This Japanese video shows that it also penetrates better than a 5.56mm from an M16A1 — but only in wood, which doesn’t tell us anything about armor-piercing properties.

He considers it ironic that insurgents are considering moving from a 7.62mm round to a smaller round, while US troops are considering moving from their small 5.56mm round to a 7.62mm round — but the US troops aren’t facing foes in body armor.

Let these two asses be set to grind corn!

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Anomaly UK (@anomalyuk) quips that the “old, insightful” Eric S. Raymond might be back — as Raymond cites the “diabolically brilliant” occultist Aleister Crowley and his Book of Lies:

“Explain this happening!”
“It must have a natural cause!”
“It must have a supernatural cause!”Let these two asses be set to grind corn!

In the original, there is a sort of grouping bracket connecting the second and third lines lines and pointing at the fourth. Crowley was asserting, in both lucid and poetic terms, that to the understanding mind the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is meaningless, an argument conducted about language categories with no predictive value.

Alfred Korzybski would have agreed with him. The founder of General Semantics built his powerful discipline on the insight that “The map is not the territory; the word is not the thing defined”. This matters because, too often, we fall into dispute over features of our maps, blithely ignoring the territory underneath.

Ever since reading the Book of Lies, I have considered “Let these two asses be set to grind corn!” to be the most appropriate thing to say when two people or factions have fallen into an argument that is strictly about map rather than territory. It does the job just as well as a more reasoned argument, I find. The imagery makes both sides look absurd, which can be a much more effective way than logic to jolt them out of their fixed categories.

I was reminded of this recently in connection with the longstanding argument between natural-law and consequentialist libertarians. Like the more general and historically much older argument between virtue ethicists and utilitarians, the dispute is interminable because it rests upon a false distinction from which nonsense follows. Utilitarians don’t get that virtue ethics is an evolved tactic to prevent destructive short-termism in one’s utility calculations; virtue ethicists don’t get that without a consequential check on the outcomes of “virtue” it rapidly becomes sterile or perverse.

Similarly, “human rights” is properly understood not as some mystical intrinsic property of humans ordained by God or natural law or whatever, but as the minimum set of premises from which it is possible to construct a society that isn’t consequentially hell on earth. But carving those in stone — using the language of rights and absolutes — is functional, too; it’s a way of protecting them from erosion by short-term expediency. For the best outcome, we must reason like consequentialists but speak and legislate like natural-law thinkers.

The universe doesn’t care about the human distinction between a-priori and consequentialist arguments; that’s all map. The territory is what people do, the actual choices they express in action. Thus…

“Human rights are founded on natural law!”
“Human rights are justified by consequential considerations!”
Let these two asses be set to grind corn!

Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Tom Wolfe famously referred to the confrontations between minority militants and hapless bureaucrats as Mau-Mauing the flak catchers — the militants were hinting at another Mau Mau Uprising, and the hapless bureaucrats were paid to take their flak:

The strange thing was that the confrontation ritual was built into the poverty program from the beginning. The poverty bureaucrats depended on confrontations in order to know what do do.

Whites were still in the dark about the ghettos. They had been studying the “urban Negro” in every way they could think of for fifteen years, but they found out they didn’t know any more about the ghettos than when they started. Every time there was a riot, whites would call on “Negro leaders” to try to cool it, only to find out that the Negro leaders didn’t have any followers. They sent Martin Luther King into Chicago and the people ignored him. They sent Dick Gregory into Watts and the people hooted at him and threw beer cans. During the riot in Hunters Point, the mayor of San Francsco, John Shelley, went into Hunters Point with the only black member of the Board of Supervisors, and the brothers threw rocks at both of them. They sent in the middle-class black members of the Human Rights Commission, and the brothers laughed at them and called them Toms.

Then they figured the leadership of the riot was “the gangs,” so they went in the “ex-gang leaders” from groups like Youth for Service to make a “liaison with the key gang leaders.” What they didn’t know was that Hunters Point and a lot of ghettos were so disorganized, there weren’t even any “key gangs,” much less “key gang leaders,” in there. That riot finally just burnt itself out after five days, that was all.

But the idea that the real leadership in the ghetto might be the gangs hung on with the poverty-youth-welfare establishment. It was considered a very sophisticated insight. The youth gangs weren’t petty criminals … there were “social bandits,” primitive revolutionaries … Of course, they were hidden from public view. That was why the true nature of ghetto leadership had eluded everyone for so long … So the poverty professionals were always on the lookout for the bad-acting dudes who were the “real leaders,” the “natural leaders,” the “charismatic figures” in the ghetto jungle. These were the kind of people the social-welfare professionals in the Kennedy Administration had in mind when they planned the poverty program in the first place.

It was a truly adventurous and experimental approach they had. Instead of handing out alms, which never seemed to change anything, they would encourage the people in the ghettos to organize. They would help them become powerful enough to force the Establishment to give them what they needed. From the beginning the poverty program was aimed at helping ghetto people rise up against their oppressors. It was a scene in which the federal government came into the ghetto and said, “Here is some money and some field advisors. Now you organize your own pressure groups.” It was no accident that Huey Newton and Bobby Seale drew up the ten-point program of the Black Panther Party one night in the offices of the North Oakland Poverty Center.

To sell the poverty program, its backers had to give it the protective coloration of “jobs” and “education,” the Job Corps and Operation Head Start, things like that, things the country as a whole could accept. “Jobs” and “education” were things everybody could agree on. They were part of the free-enterprise ethic. They weren’t uncomfortable subjects like racism and the class structure — and giving the poor the money and the tools to fight City Hall. But from the first that was what the lion’s share of the poverty budget went into. It went into “community organizing,” which was the bureaucratic term for “power to the people,” the term for finding the real leaders of the ghetto and helping them organize the poor.

And how could they find out the identity of these leaders of the people? Simple. In their righteous wrath they would rise up and confront you. It was a beautiful piece of circular reasoning. The real leaders of the ghetto will rise up and confront you … Therefore, when somebody rises up in the ghetto and confronts you, then you know he’s a leader of the people. So the poverty program not only encouraged mau-mauing, it practically demanded it. Subconsciously, for administrators in the poverty establishment, public and private, confrontations became a ritual. That was the way the system worked. By 1968 it was standard operating procedure. To get a job in the post office, you filled out forms and took the civil-service exam. To get into the poverty scene, you did some mau-mauing. If you could make the flak catchers lose control of the muscles around their mouths, if you could bring fear into their faces, your application was approved.

What Do Conservatives Believe?

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

What do conservatives believe? Tyler Cowen draws up a list that doesn’t quite ring true. I prefer Arnold Kling’s list — which is not a list of what he believes, or of what I believe, for that matter, but of what conservatives believe:

  1. Human culture is going down hill. Where a progressive is ashamed of our past and hopeful for the future, a conservative is proud of our past and worried about the future. Everywhere a conservative looks, he sees decay: sexual morals, education, political leadership, civic responsibility. Unless we can somehow revive our lost virtues, our past greatness will fade into a perilous future.
  2. Christianity is the key to civilization and, dare one say it, the most progressive force in history. Ultimately, it is to Christianity that we owe the idea of the dignity of every human being. From this source comes recognition of the evils of slavery, tyranny, poverty, war, and violence. Humans are evil, but thanks to Christianity they are less evil.
  3. Markets are preferable to government to the extent that markets are more consistent with family responsibility. Too much government leads to dependency and loss of virtue. However, cultural solidarity and virtue are more important than small government. Markets are amoral, and market processes can produce change that is too rapid for a culture to absorb. Markets promote individuality, at the expense of group cohesion. It is better to have government redistribution programs and regulations that hold society together than to allow markets to foster a total breakdown in social norms.

Tyler’s one point that Kling and I both agree deserves to make the list is his last:

Responsibility is a more important value than either liberty or equality.

Or, rather, that responsibility and liberty are two sides of the same coin.

Contenders for domination of North America

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Until the middle of the 19th century, George Friedman explains, there were two contenders for domination of North America — Washington and Mexico City:

After the American conquest of northern Mexico in the 1840s, Washington dominated North America and Mexico City ruled a weak and divided country. It remained this way for 150 years. It will not remain this way for another hundred. Today, Mexico is the world’s 13th-largest economy. It is unstable due to its drug wars, but it is difficult to imagine those wars continuing for the rest of the century. The heirs of today’s gangsters will be on the board of art museums soon enough.

Mexico has become a nation of more than 100 million people with a trillion-dollar economy. When you look at a map of the borderland between the United States and Mexico, you see a huge flow of drug money to the south and the flow of population northward. Many areas of northern Mexico that the US seized are now being repopulated by Mexicans moving northward — US citizens, or legal aliens, or illegal aliens. The political border and the cultural border are diverging.

Until after the middle of the century, the US will not respond. It will have concerns elsewhere and demographic shifts in the US will place a premium on encouraging Mexican migration northward. It will be after the mid-century systemic war that the new reality will emerge. Mexico will be a prosperous, powerful nation with a substantial part of its population living in the American south-west, in territory that Mexicans regard as their own.

An Enhanced Model of Zombie Infestation

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Anomaly UK has gone to the length of learning LaTeX in order to write up his enhanced model of zombie infestation with the proper mathematical notation:

The survival of the human population in the face of a zombie threat as hypothesised here depends on three factors — the ratio of human births to (non zombie-related) deaths, [the ratio] of humans killing zombies to zombies converting humans, and the proportion of corpses which naturally become zombies before decomposing ultimately.

Fortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that this third factor is very close to zero. That being the case, any influx of zombies can be faced provided we can kill zombies faster than they can directly turn us into zombies.

If this were to change however, and our dead were to start to become undead in serious numbers, we would approach the point where we would not be able to control them. Given a ratio of births to natural deaths of less than two, a kill-to-conversion ratio in human-zombie encounters would have to be well over two to put down newly-risen zombies. The easiest approach to reducing the risk would seem to be to increase lambda (?), that is, to make sure corpses are destroyed before they can become zombies. If 99% of corpses decay or are destroyed safely, then, given a human growth rate of 10% per generation, we only need a 10% advantage in human-zombie conflict to have the upper hand.

A high lambda (?), also, by equation (12), improves the robustness of a society, that is, the ability to overcome a disturbance caused by a sudden influx of zombies or a sudden decrease in able-bodied people able to kill those zombies that naturally appear.

If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

I recently learned that Winston Churchill wrote a piece of recursive alternate history, called If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg, back in 1930. Naturally, it’s really about what would have happened if Lee had won at Gettysburg. Churchill optimistically sees the USA, CSA, and UK re-uniting into an English-Speaking Association, which averts the Great War:

It is no exaggeration to say that had the crisis of general mobilization of August, 1914, been followed by war, we might to-day in this island see income tax at four shillings or five shillings in the pound, and have one and a half million unemployed workmen on our hands.

A Guarantee It Couldn’t Fulfill

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

Seventy years ago, Poland was stuck between hostile nations:

Hitler wanted Danzig, which was 95 percent German, and the Polish Corridor, to which the Poles were more attached. The Soviet Union was even more intimidating. Hitler’s immediate goal was an alliance with Poland, ultimately against Bolshevik Russia and to negotiate the return of Danzig. In response to Germany’s ambitions, Chamberlain, now convinced by Churchill’s warnings, preempted any possible deal between Germany and Poland.

On March 31, 1939, he rose in the House of Commons to make the most fateful British declaration of the century: “[In] the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power.”

It was this guarantee, Buchanan argues, that sealed the fate of the Western world:

Poland, a dictatorship that had benefited from the divvying up of Czechoslovakia, was far less a strategic interest to Britain and France than the Rhineland and Sudetenland. By guaranteeing to defend Poland against Nazi aggression – which Britain could not do directly, and in fact did not do throughout the war – Britain guaranteed there would be war with Germany. The only way it could back up its guarantee was by declaring war on Germany from the west, ensuring the Nazis would attack the Western democracies.

Chamberlain thought the war guarantee “might block a Polish-German deal, force Hitler to think about a two-front war, give Britain an ally with fifty-five divisions, and enable Britain to avoid the alliance with Stalin being pressed upon him by Churchill, Lloyd George, and the Labour Party.” This is not what ultimately happened.

Emboldened by the war guarantee, the Polish refused to negotiate with Hitler, and so Hitler sought an alliance with Stalin. The two totalitarians would invade Poland in September 1939, meet in the middle, and partition the country, and Britain and France would indeed declare war from the west.

Buchanan’s main thesis: Had Britain kept itself armed and neutral instead of giving a guarantee to Poland it couldn’t meaningfully fulfill, it could have avoided a war in Western Europe.

New powers will emerge

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

New powers will emerge, George Friedman notes, and there are three nations that will be important to the US in dealing with Russia in the next decade or so — Japan, Turkey and Poland:

Japan is already a great power. It is the world’s second-largest economy, with a far more stable distribution of income and social structure than China. It has east Asia’s largest navy — one that China would like to have — and an army larger than Britain’s (since the Second World War, both Japan’s “army” and “navy” have officially been non-aggressive “self-defence forces”). It has not been a dynamic country, militarily or economically, but dynamism comes and goes. It is the fundamentals of national power, relative to other countries, that matter in the long run.

Turkey is now the world’s 17th-largest economy and the largest Islamic economy. Its military is the most capable in the region and is also probably the strongest in Europe, apart from the British armed forces. Its influence is already felt in the Caucasus, the Balkans, central Asia and the Arab world. Most important, it is historically the leader in the Muslim world, and its bridge to the rest of the world. Over the centuries, when the Muslim world has been united, this has happened under Turkish power; the past century has been the aberration. If Russia weakens, Turkey emerges as the dominant power in the region, including the eastern Mediterranean; Turkey is an established naval power. It has also been historically pragmatic in its foreign policies.

Poland has the 18th-largest economy in the world, the largest among the former Soviet satellites and the eighth-largest in Europe. It is a vital strategic asset for the US. In the emerging competition between the US and Russia, Poland represents the geographical frontier between Europe and Russia and the geographical foundation of any attempt to defend the Baltics. Given the US strategic imperative to block Eurasian hegemons and Europe’s unease with the US, the US-Polish relationship becomes critical. In 2008 the US signed a deal with Poland to instal missiles in the Baltic Sea as part of Washington’s European missile defence shield, ostensibly to protect against “rogue states”. The shield is not about Iran, but about Poland as a US ally — from the American and the Russian points of view.

What does it mean to be a strategic asset to the US? Look at South Korea:

Any suggestion in 1950 that it would become a major industrial power by the end of the century would have been greeted with disbelief. Yet that is what Korea became. Like Israel, South Korea formed a strategic relationship with the US that was transformative. And both South Korea and Israel started with a much weaker base in 1950 than Poland has today.

Because US strategy considers any great maritime power a threat, solving the Russian problem will create another — a Japanese-Turkish problem:

Imagining a Japanese-Turkish alliance is strange but no stranger than a Japanese-German alliance in 1939. Both countries will be under tremendous pressure from the established power. Both will have an interest in overthrowing the global regime the US has imposed. The risk of not acting will be greater than the risk of acting. That is the basis of war.

Yes, that is strange — but no stranger than a Japanese-German alliance in 1939.