Clear geopolitical analysis
The phrase No Rex—“no king”—captures a political instinct far older than modern democracy. It is a warning, a boundary, and a declaration of civic maturity. From the Roman Republic to the founding of the United States, rejection of monarchy has not merely been institutional but moral. In this light, contemporary concerns about the monarchical tendencies attributed … Read more
It is perfectly clear that, no matter how democratic a country may be domestically, its foreign policy borrows very little from the rule of law. This is also the case of the United States, which—however much it claims to be democratic and morally superior to, say, Russia or China—has far too many moments in its recent history in which it acted exactly as it wanted, not as it should have. Obviously, when you criticize someone, you should look not at who is doing the criticizing, but at what is being said. But sometimes—and this is such a case—it is also worth looking at who is speaking, at the one pointing the finger, always at others.
Anyone passionate about history is at least somewhat familiar with the story of the “Gordian knot,” but for readers who may not be very well acquainted with the military exploits of Alexander the Great, it is useful to briefly revisit this story. In the fourth century BCE, Phrygia, a region in Asia Minor, was part of the Persian Empire. The principal city of Phrygia was Gordium. In one of the city’s temples stood a chariot bound with an extremely intricate knot. According to the legend transmitted by historical sources, whoever untied the knot would rule Asia. Alexander the Great attacked the Persian Empire in 334 BCE and arrived at Gordium. Whether out of superstition or as a very capable politician who understood the propaganda value of the prophecy, he chose to cut the knot with his sword, demonstrating not only that he would become the ruler of Asia, but also the manner in which he would come to rule it: by the sword.