The situation around North Korea has already heated up to such an extent that regardless of its outcome one can predict one thing: the United States lost. In other words, they have lost a part of their already-decreasing geopolitical weight, including among the Allies. The only question is whether the US will lose more without war - or as a result of the war?
"Military measures are now fully prepared, loaded and ready for battle in the event that North Korea will act rashly. I hope Kim Jong-un chooses another way! "- so wrote Donald Trump on Friday.
Will the US strike the DPRK?
- this question bothers very many in the world. Despite the soothing explanations of Secretary of State Tillerson, fear in the world is growing.
Comparisons with the Caribbean crisis have long been a common place (although they are completely incorrect). And now, after this week Trump moved to the North Korean language with threats of "unprecedented fury and fire," politicians remembered about the First World War. Thus, the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Sigmar Gabriel, stated that "such rhetoric is a cause for concern and fear that we, like during the First World War, like the sleepwalkers will get involved in the war. Only this time in a war that will be fought through atomic weapons. "
The official position of the German government justifies Trump, urging Russia and China "to do everything in their power to keep the DPRK from further escalation." More open calls are voiced in Germany - China should assume global responsibility for resolving the conflict between the DPRK and the United States. The Tagesspiegel newspaper writes that the world is on the verge of a nuclear war, but "falling into the abyss can still be prevented ... it all depends primarily on China": "
"Beijing is able to reduce the threat of war through sanctions and diplomacy, or, letting it go for granted, to allow a final loss of control over the situation. In the first case, China will have to share global responsibility, in the second - to continue to pursue national interests and move arrows in solving unpleasant problems on others ... Kim and Trump play the most brutal way on the fears of China. Both want to pull Beijing over to their side. "
That is, Beijing is calling for becoming a global leader along with the US - demonstrating this by saving the world from a nuclear war. And these calls sound from Germany, that is, from the half-vassal-half-union of the USA. In fact, this is a call for the formation of a "new world order" - exactly the way the article is called:
"In the 1962 year (during the Caribbean crisis - note VZGLYAD), the US and the USSR managed to agree ... In 2017, the Korean crisis could lead to a new world order in which the United States and China should share global responsibility. Otherwise, the sea of blood will spill. "
It is interesting not to offer Beijing and Washington to form a "big deuce", which, incidentally, the Obama administration also acted and which was rejected by Beijing. And in the current situation this proposal is even more unworkable.
More interesting is the fact that distrust of the United States, which has been accumulating in Europe all these years, has received very serious recharge. On the one hand, Europe is unhappy with the American pressure on it with the aim of preserving anti-Russian sanctions. On the other hand, she does not like Trump's doubt about Atlantic solidarity, his rejection of the EU and the desire to knock out more money from NATO partners. And even talk about possible US sanctions against China and at all lead the EU into a stupor - China is an important trade and economic partner for the EU. Well, the Korean crisis leads to the fact that Europe, whose political elite does not accept Trump, begins to really fear the onset of the nuclear war.
As a result, the United States suffers - that is, their positions in Europe, the younger partner and the pillar of their global power. If the United States is no longer a guarantor of international security, but a threat, then this is another world. Previously, individual EU countries could condemn the US attack on Iraq or some other actions, but the Korean crisis frightens Europeans.
So, in any case, the United States has very serious reputational losses. In Europe - because they did not understand why Washington puts the world on the brink of nuclear war. In the rest of the world - in Asia, Africa and Latin America - see that only nuclear weapons and a tough tone in relations with the US can contain the aggression of the hegemon.
But what happens if the US still strikes North Korea?
Then they will be in the propaganda and geopolitical win? Is it possible to happen unimaginable?
Imagine the most "simple" option - a US blow to several locations of nuclear weapons and missiles in the DPRK. As a result, only part of the Korean arsenal will be destroyed. And Pyongyang will get the island of Guam (as it promises) with a retaliatory blow, or it will use conventional, non-nuclear weapons (artillery) against American bases in South Korea. Missiles flying to Guam can be intercepted - but it is impossible to fully cover bases in South Korea from the "sea of fire" of the North Korean army. This means huge sacrifices - hundreds, thousands of Americans. Also what - Trump in the answer will start to bomb already all strategic objects in territory of Democratic People's Republic of Korea? With millions of victims and retaliatory blows from the Korean People's Army across the territory of 50-million South Korea? Remembering that China promised the DPRK that if someone's troops cross the 38 parallel, then he will come to Pyongyang's aid. This madness - in the literal sense of the word, and Trump and his generals are not at all mad.
But imagine that such a war happened - and in the most anemic version. A miracle happened: the DPRK's response to the first blow was weak, only a few hundred people died, after a retaliatory American strike against a number of military bases, Pyongyang did not respond and the war magically ceased. What in the end?
The US has shown the world that they can punish a naughty country? No - because the nuclear and missile program of the DPRK will not be destroyed completely (to destroy it entirely, it is necessary to bomb half the country), and so Pyongyang will continue it, and with renewed vigor. The US will simply bury its dead soldiers, like they saved the world from the "mad maniac Kim"? But no, they did not save - here he is in Pyongyang and sends curses to the US. Relations between the US and the People's Republic of China will not only be spoiled - they will become worse than with Russia. The DPRK for China is like Azerbaijan for Russia. How would an American attack on this neighboring republic be perceived in our country?
The situation in the Far East will sharply worsen. South Korea will try to get rid of American troops - so as not to put the lives of millions of its citizens in dependence on US vagaries. At the same time, the region will begin an arms race not only between South Korea and Japan, but also between the US and the PRC.
So even a small war with the DPRK will have a catastrophic impact on international relations - and will crumble the "shares" of the United States in the world. And by the way, none of the parties in the American struggle for power will help in any way - because neither Trump nor his enemies can use her results to defeat the enemy. After all, it will be an unfinished and unconquerable war. But in order to finish it, that is, "destroy Kim", it will be necessary to start a full-fledged Third World War with China.
It is clear that such a scenario can only be considered as a hypothetical one - and that is why the probability of a US strike against the DPRK is close to zero. But it is not zero. The United States does not have any winning options out of the Korean crisis - the loss of influence will happen in any case. But it's one thing to gradually get everything off the hook and go to talks with Pyongyang, and quite another to arrange a war on the verge of a nuclear war, then all the same, go to the same talks. Geopolitical damage for the United States in the second case will be incommensurably higher.