Narrow Corridor-5: Epilogue.

'If elections could change anything, they would be illegal!' Robert Borden, Lowell Sun, 1976

The Democrats have heavily linked their election strategy to the Russian-Ukrainian war, promising to literally stop Putin.

To 'stop Putin', the Biden administration has pushed through a military aid package for Ukraine exceeding $60 billion through Congress, which could have been used to fight several continental wars.

The Republicans, especially the Trump wing, supported the Democrats' initiative in Congress to observe the behavior of their political opponents and anticipate how they would get into trouble.

Biden triumphantly held the anniversary summit in Washington, where the revival of the alliance was recorded, and the aid package helped eliminate Russian air defense missiles in Crimea and make a bold move into the Kharkiv region.

But even though the Biden administration had all the tools, it did not take the appropriate measure to show decisive support for Ukraine, so that it could demonstrate successes on the battlefield.

The Russian occupation troops continued to advance, and the Time to stop them was running out.

The Democrats deliberately got themselves into a narrow corridor of the Ukrainian issue by making it the mainstream of their election campaign. As the elections approached, the corridor narrowed, and the Republicans' criticism became sharper.

Through purely political techniques, analogous to the successful previous Democratic presidential campaigns, the authors thought that for the Democrats to win, a specific process would have to take place to influence the preferences of undecided voters.

On October 10, Biden was supposed to meet with German Chancellor Scholz, French President Macron, and British Prime Minister Starmer at the Ramstein base.

The decisions and statements that would have been made there were supposed to create the necessary background for further events, including meetings of the defense ministers of NATO countries in Brussels.

The planned meeting in Ramstein was obviously to be synchronized with Zelensky's 'Victory Plan', which, as a standalone document, to say the least, appears surreal. But as part of a broader concept, it would have become part of a puzzle.

But just before the meeting in Ramstein, it was canceled because neither Biden, Harris, Blinken, nor Austin flew to Germany due to a 'never-before-seen' hurricane in Florida (which actually turned out to be a rather typical natural event).

By skipping event X, the Democrats handed Trump the presidency because neither Kamala Harris nor her opponents nor themselves continued a clear Biden administration policy, which was actually true.

Foreign Policy commentator Michael Hirsh wrote in his article 'Why She Lost': 'Harris couldn't find a politically savvy way to distance herself from her unpopular boss, US President Joe Biden'.

And that was the crucial mistake because it is a truism that even a 'candidate of power' must immediately distance himself from that 'power' from the first day of the campaign.

Looking back on his time as a candidate in a repeat presidential election, Leonid Kuchma even went into opposition to... himself.

Miller believes that 'Harris answered clumsily a simple question from the friendly TV presenter Sunny Hostin, co-presenter of The View, who asked Harris on October 8 if she had done anything differently in the last four years than Biden. 'I don't think', Harris awkwardly replied, causing horror among advisers and triggering an internet triumph for Trump.

Even in this situation, Kamala Harris was not condemned - although she did not 'ignite' like Trump, she raised $1.6 billion (Donald Trump - $1.1 billion).

But the behavior of Biden and other high-ranking officials, as well as international leaders after the election, showed that the Democrats were no longer willing to fight for the White House.

And that, even though Harris was only 240,000 votes short in three swing states to win the election: 30,000 in Wisconsin, 80,000 in Michigan, and 130,000 in Pennsylvania.

But why did the Democrats give up event X and thus lose the election?

Because almost until the day of the election, Kamala led Trump, and it was only right before the election that the trend reversed.

Probably because the Democrats could not win either chamber of Congress: neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate.

The global transformation initiated by the US establishment and implemented by the Democrats from the very beginning would have taken an unacceptably long time and would continue to face bipartisan confrontations, as in the case of aid to Ukraine.

Democracy is the dictatorship of the process. In a situation of tough conflict, autocracies have an advantage because they are not bound by procedures.

Time is of the essence to respond to current challenges - a turbo mode is required.

It turns out that (as naive as it may sound), a barbaric regime violation took place in the narrow corridor.