Historic North Korea/South Korea Meeting - Trump Peace Prize?

Propaganda value with who? And who does this further legitimize him with? He was never considered to be the illegitimate leader of North Korea even though he is a dictator. The South Koreans have taken far more concrete steps with North Korea than we truly have. Don’t forget that the South Koreans pushed heavily for this normalization of relations as well.

Further we never truly isolated North Korea. They still have other parts of the world they can trade with (China and Russia being the big ones). They isolated themselves more than we did.

 

For starters, his own people, who now get to watch the US President kissing Dear Leader's ass on State TV for the next few months/years....

The Chinese Government, without who NK could not survive, and I assume their people too, who get the NoRK media that they are allowed to.

The South Korean people, and government

The Japanese people, and government.

 

It is not dangerous-- at least to the extent it leaves the policy wrt to N. Korea unchanged from more or less the 1960's through the Clinton-Bush-Obama years. Such mad men as Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders see Trump's attempts as worthwhile.

Deckard is still locked into the geo-political ideology of his childhood wrt to foreign policy. Hey I learned it more or less at the same time.

Trump really had no chance at a Treaty because of the type of bi-partisan Pentagton/Beltway types support. To be clear ,until the US stops seeing itself as entitled to engage frequently in regime wars/actions such as in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela to name some of the more recent ones it is unlikely Kim will give up his nukes. Qadafi for instance gave up his nukes and it got him killed. Kim is very aware of this.

Who cares what the Korean, North and South want? The beltway geo-politcal schemes rule. So reminds me of Henry Kissinger justifying the overthrow of the Democrat Allende to install Pinochet when he essentially said; "There is too much at stake there to let those irresponsible people (the Chilean voters ) decide what goes on there.

I guess I have to make it clear Sadam, Qadafi, Assad are dictators.

 

How do you work toward NK regime change beside military operation? China and Russia isn't that interest to play along.

From NK view, that's one thing they wouldn't allow - a regime change. How would they be willing to give up military nuke knowing that? They won't. It's their only leverage.

Seems to me the only non-military choice is one of working with them to reduce the risk of nuke, not total removal of their nuke capability.

 

Nothing happens without China taking the lead. Russia is mostly irrelevant.

Soft regime change w/in the next 20 years is what I was talking about. So...detante? I just don't think that gladhanding and calling Kim "my friend" is something a US President should be doing at this point.

 

At any point toward a murderous regime.

Russian is relevant with their veto power at the UN Security Council.

If you want a soft regime change, than you are going to have to acceptthat they will modernize their nuke capability over those years. And risk that there is no regime change but maybe a slow move toward modernization. In 10 years we may see a desperate regime with the capability to hit anywhere in the world.

The other path is to give them something that could speed up modernization, reduce isolation and provide incentive to be a good citizen of the world (trades and wealth), in exchange for at min verifiable pause on nuke advancement for some extended period and removal of long range nuke capability.

 

The second is the ideal, but the first is the real, I'm afraid.

Maybe this Kim is different, but when have they ever cared about modernizing, being an honest player on the world stage, reducing isolation, or being anything but the same? And how does any of this happen without China twisting their arms? And does China want to do that? I'd think a reunified Korea is very much against their interests.

 

Plus... trump gave kim a free pass on the killing of Warmbier, with his embarrassing comments

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/opin...ong-un-otto-warmbier-remark-ghitis/index.html

Is it any wonder that kim and the north koreans are already holding the football out for another meeting with trump? This is fun for them.

Kim Jong Un willing to sit down with Trump again, North Korea state media says
https://www.foxnews.com/world/kim-jong-un-willing-to-sit-down-with-trump-again-state-media-says

 

Though interesting fox news came away with that after what the north koreans said in the post summit press conference...

 

Remember when Republicans wanted to impeach Obama for even suggesting that he would talk to N Korea? Those were the days.

 

republicans went from that to this...

 

I think we need to decide what the goal is: regime change, or denuclearization. Because I think they are mutually exclusive from each other. If they think we are pursuing regime change, they will never give up their nukes. Personally, I would think the goal is the latter. What makes them dangerous is not their regime, it is their regime with nukes. Plus, if they start down the path of denuclearization, it is indeed working towards regime change, indirectly. Denuclearization would include a fundamental shift in the regime's perspective on...everything. So, focus on that, and forget about regime change.

 

And hey, trump lied about the north korea position, who woulda thunk?

Officials say Trump overstated Kim’s demand on sanctions

https://apnews.com/85250b96c38b4a23...Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

north korea was more honest than trump. Let that sink in...

 

What is denuclearization?

This admin publicly stated goal was full denuclearization. That was never achievable. The NK don't care if the USA tell NK that we don't support regime change. They won't believe it. More importantly, even if they do, they realize it's one administration's policy. The next one can change policy. Look at what changed from Clinton to Bush that directly impacted NK. Look at what happen with the Iran nuke deal from one Admin to the next. Look at what happen to Gaddafi, who arguably would still be here if he didn't give up nuke.

Once they have, and they have achieved nuclear ability, they will never give it up. I think the realistic goal is risk reduction of their nuke capability and nudge NK toward being a good neighbor.

 

This family was previously supporters of Trump, and now he has **** all over the memory of their son. I won’t be at all surprised if he attacks this family in an upcoming Twitter tirade.

 

I've been kinda surprised by the analysis of this summit here and in the news. I guess when I disagree with everybody, the fault is probably with me. But, here's my perspective, keeping in mind I'm only half paying attention.

I never thought this Hanoi summit would amount to anything, just like I don't think Trump's engagement with North Korea will ever amount to anything. North Korea finally got their nukes, but they're for protection and they're not really planning on nuking anyone. So this 'temporary peace' that Trump has won with his engagement strategy would have prevailed anyway. What might be different is the amount of sabre-rattling. But, there is no way North Korea is going to agree to completely denuclearize. Trump should know that, so the point of the meetings is to look like you're asking for complete denuclearization, and maybe along the way you can negotiate some lesser concessions.

More particularly on Hanoi, I suspect Trump's walk-out was premeditated. It's part of his negotiating schtick. He did this on the wall when he met with Pelosi and then walked out again. He probably thinks it makes the counterparty feel vulnerable because they want a deal more than he supposedly does. Then, mischaracterizing the counterparty's position is also a ploy. It's actually textbook gaslighting stuff. You get third parties (here, maybe its China) to reproach the counterparty for not being 'reasonable.' The problem I have with this approach is that if I'm right, and I'm only half paying attention, then his negotiating tactics are an open book. If I can see it, surely Kim can see it. And just like Pelosi called BS on him and won, Kim can call BS. China can call BS. Does Trump think China will give more concessions out of fear he'll walk out on them like he walked out on North Korea? Because I think that's unlikely.

But in the meantime, it probably doesn't hurt either. NK won't denuclearize. They won't nuke anyone either. There's no particularly good reason we want to cancel any sanctions. So we'll be stuck in status quo for a while. But, North Korea suffers while America prospers. We can do this for a long time -- until things get so bad in North Korea that the regime must fight or die. So, whatever.

 

All the usual bs talk about "legitimizing" losing our "prestige" "showing America's " determination" "seriousness" will as usual result in war, or almost as valuable for the military industrial complex massive arm expenditures. We need another trillion $ to "modernize" our nukes to protect us from N. Korea-- the same nukes that if used mean millions of Americans or N.Koreans (who cares?) actually perish. And we are not talking about Sadam's or the next unfavored dictator's weapons of mass destruction killing Americans.

Trump is a criminal pathogically lying buffoon, but why not hope he can accomplish something against the wishes of the "serious" bi-partisan consensus that always comes up war or increases in the military budget.

 

So when our intelligence briefings state that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal, and Trump states otherwise out of pride most likely, is he asking for less war?

So when Trump brags about increasing military spending time and time again when he passed the previous spending bill, is he asking for a smaller military budget?

You would think that the war hawk "deep state" desiring ever lasting war would actually state that Iran is NOT complying.