Alexey Tsvetkov: Damn on the sand

In 168 BC, the Roman consul Guy Popillius Lenat presented a kind of ultimatum to the Asian king Antiochus IV , who was about to storm the capital of Egypt Alexandria. Popillius arrived with the decree of the Senate, who decided to prevent this attack, Antiochus hesitated with the final answer. Then Popillius pulled a circle around Antioch with a cane on the sand and stated that the king would not cross it until he gave an answer. Antiochus had no reason to doubt the determination of the Senate, and he abandoned his plans. Thus arose the winged expression of the “line in the sand”, but over time, as it often happens, it slightly changed its meaning: if the Roman consul meant that the time for an answer is limited, today about this line is indicated as the last and decisive warning, which will be followed by radical response measures. Sometimes instead of the line in the sand they say about the "red line", but the meaning is the same: the side presenting such an ultimatum puts its authority on the map.

Many remembered this verbal formula in connection with the promise of Barack Obama to resort to extraordinary measures if Syria President Bashar Assad applies chemical weapons in the civil war. As we now know, Obama turned out to be much more concessed than Pielly, and although he subsequently mentioned his decision not to resort to an armed response as one of the most important and the most faithful, it was he who gave Vladimir Putin a chance to intervene in the conflict and declare about Russia as an international arbitrator, returning to her, at least in the eyes of some, the former authority, then there was an authority of the United States. Damage is inflicted - in the eyes of both opponents and allies.

There is no place to talk about whether this decision was true, although doubts are inevitable. But now we have a new version of the line in the sand before our eyes, and this time the bet is much higher than in the case of Obama. In response to reports that North Korea managed to create a nuclear warhead, which is able to deliver ballistic missiles, US President Donald Trump answered with a threat , the meaning of which is not in doubt: he promised the DPRK "Fire and Fury, and the power that ... the world has not yet seen." If we take into account that the world has already witnessed nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then this threat is interpreted quite unambiguously. The historical erudition of the president is small, and it was unlikely that he came to mind that he made this statement on the eve of the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki.

North Korea now threatens to strike at the island of Guam, southeast of Korea and about halfway to the United States. GUAM is the overseas territory of the United States, and in addition to the indigenous population, numbering a little more than 150 thousand people, American military bases occupying about a third of the island are deployed here. What can really be opposed to these threats of the United States, if we assume that the blow will be delivered? North Korea has since clarified that she intends to launch missiles not on the island itself, but in its immediate vicinity; This is quite realistic and is an undoubted escalation. On the other hand, the president’s escalation was accused by Republican Senator John McCain , according to which the president has no right to make statements that cannot be realized.

All this crisis with its mutual bluff and escalations is very reminiscent of a Poker Party with exorbitantly high rates, and it is obvious that at some point the card will have to be opened. It is easy to understand that the sides, which more realistic evaluates the alignment, will remain in the winnings. In this case, such a party, oddly enough, is the North Korean leader Kim Jong -un, despite his reputation as a madman who blows up a weapon. He, at least, clearly understands that after a real ultimatum, the side, who challenged, no longer pounds himself in the chest and does not grind his teeth.

Theoretically, the United States has no need to resort to nuclear weapons-they may well disable the entire military potential of North Korea using F-22 bombers, equipped with bombs with high accuracy of guidance, and in a matter of minutes. This, however, suggests the presence of accurate intelligence, which the United States, most likely, simply does not. And even such a measure leaves Pyongyang a temporary window for leading: at his disposal, an artillery complex, capable of delivering a crushing blow to Seoul at the same time, with victims among the civilians up to 200 thousand people. It is quite obvious that Kim Jong -un, with all his reputation, understands this perfectly - including the fact that he can afford the launch of missiles in the environs of Guam, without fear of a total answer. And if Donald Trump himself does not understand the subtleties of the situation, then the generals from his environment are good known. In other words, in the current Poker party there is only one side with an unable combination, and this side is not the United States.

The real danger, of course, is not that Trump repeats Obama's mistake in tenfold. A good poker player understands: if the bluff has gone too far, it is better to close the bet and open the cards to limit the loss. The trouble is that history tells us a situation where none of the players had the mind to stop-for example, in August 1914. Verbal escalation has the ability to flow into a gunshot, and today even into a nuclear one.

Alexey Tsvetkov-New York publicist and political commentator

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office