The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    If the US starts to care about expenses for foreign military bases, this would be great. Actually, nobody cares. Or maybe Trump cares?
    Wow, the evil fascist transforms into somebody without any aims for whatever.
    Given that a non-nuclear NK is not really a choice, your whining about nuclear NK is quite irrelevant. All it means is the continuation of the state of war, the sanctions, and all this. (The only way we can imagine NK getting non-nuclear is through China. And this requires that Chinese power over NK is strong enough, which is not obvious at all - NK has done a lot of things China did not really like. But to get China on board, you have to pay, and the payment is quite clear - denuclearization of South Korea too.)

    Instead, there are quite reasonable ways to increase the peacefulness of a nuclear NK after a peace treaty and an end of sanctions. There can be a lot of transit from SK to China and Russia. In particular pipelines. Which would generate transit income for NK,

    You think the South Koreans like to live in a state of war and prefer it to peace?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    #trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News, 13 June 2018

    The subheader for John Sifton's↱ article for The Diplomat reminds, "Romancing Kim in Singapore won't denuclearize North Korea or improve its human rights record":

    As counterproliferation experts and seasoned North Korea watchers have concluded in parsing the joint communique to Tuesday's summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, no significant or tangible steps were actually taken toward denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. The joint statement released after the meeting, most of which had been agreed to beforehand, committed North Korea to nothing. The two sides essentially agreed to do what they have already decided to do—continue negotiating.

    North Korea, which made only vague rehashed pledges, gained significant concessions, including a halt to joint U.S.-South Korea war games. Meanwhile, China, which helped broker and leaven the summit, has relaxed its recently stepped-up enforcement of the UN sanctions, an important piece of leverage on Kim.


    Kim, in achieving the remarkable diplomatic feat of transforming from ruthless dictator to world statesmen in just a few months, seems to have learned something from his friend, former NBA star Dennis Rodman, also on hand in Singapore for the summit circus. Indeed, North Korea is now in a position to do what Rodman memorably did exactly 20 years ago on the same night as the summit, during the crucial final minute of Game 3 of the 1998 NBA finals: grab the ball, hold on, and let the clock run out. Kim can now keep talking, keep the clock running, gain legitimacy on the world stage, and ultimately "win," when the world finally concedes on North Korea's status as a nuclear power.

    The news is even worse for the people of North Korea, who daily suffer from the Kim regime's totalitarian abuses. In burnishing Kim's stature, the deal may well end up indefinitely entrenching his rule.

    In a news conference Tuesday, when asked about prisoners in North Korea's vast network of labor camps and gulags, Trump tried to suggest that they were "great winners" because of the summit, presumably on a vague and unsupported theory that denuclearization (which isn't likely to happen anytime soon) will somehow lead to improvements in North Korea's human rights record.

    There is no evidence that the summit made progress on human rights. Trump wasn't even able to secure a passing reference in a nonbinding joint communique. How will the U.S. ever be able to achieve actual progress on human rights issues in subsequent negotiations, if the issues aren't even on the table and there's no pressure on Kim to make changes.

    The hundreds of thousands of North Koreans being brutalized daily in prisons and labor camps and gulags in the mountains are not "winners" now and they won't be tomorrow. Nor are the millions of other North Koreans who are routinely subjected to forced labor and deprived of basic rights, ranging from freedom of speech and assembly to adequate food, housing, education, and health care.

    Also posted for The Diplomat, Ankit Panda↱ wonders, "But What Did Trump Get From the Historic Summit?"

    It's true that by sitting across from Kim, Trump accomplished something no other US president before him had. But it's not true that his predecessors couldn't have entered a summit with Kim's father or grandfather had they chosen to. For North Korea, the summit alone was a prize to be won—that's why other administrations had held out the prospect of a meeting with a US president as a reward for the good faith implementation of successive agreements on denuclearization.

    As Wednesday morning's issue of Rodong Sinmun, North Korea's internally focused state newspaper, illustrated, the summit was a major propaganda coup for Kim. It emphasized to Pyongyang's elite and ordinary citizens alike that his byungjin agenda, of pursuing the simultaneous development of nuclear weapons and the economy, had yielded results.

    Even while buckling under the US administration's "maximum pressure" policy of energetic sanctions expansion and implementation—a policy that is now dead in the water after the summit—Kim was able to complete a sufficiently credible nuclear deterrent to force the United States to the negotiating table. And now Kim has his front-page splash on Rodong Sinmun, showing him sitting and standing right beside Trump, the president of the United States, as the leader of a fellow nuclear weapons state.

    Several observers in the US have expressed concerns that the summit will legitimize the odious Kim regime—the world's foremost pariah state, responsible for the operation of unconscionable gulags, currency counterfeiting, cyber theft, and even the manufacture of methamphetamines. But that was always going to be the case, sooner or later.

    The problem with the summit ultimately wasn't the optics or the legitimisation of the regime, though these are certainly points that count against the US ledger of concessions. Rather, the problem was just how little the United States managed to extract from North Korea and how much it gave up.

    A different version from Panda↱, via the Daily Beast:

    This was likely always going to be part of the package of offering to meet with a North Korean leader, which is precisely why previous U.S. presidents—all of whom could have offered to meet unconditionally with Kim Jong Un or his father or grandfather—chose to place a summit at the end of a diplomatic process with North Korea.

    The idea was simple: Once North Korea had shown itself to comply in good faith with a process of implementing a robust agreement on denuclearization, it would receive the legitimizing capital associated with a summit with a U.S. president.

    Instead, here we had Kim meeting Trump in exchange for little else than the release of three U.S. hostages in May. Though often framed as North Korean concessions to the United States, Kim made clear to highlight that his decision to close the nuclear test site at Punggye-ri and to enter a moratorium on testing intercontinental-range ballistic missiles was a sovereign choice—one that North Korea was making as a result of becoming a mature nuclear-weapons power.

    The defense and security policy analyst whose credentials include the Federation of American Scientists also goes on to suggest, "'better than nuclear war' shouldn't be the only yardstick we use to gauge the success of a summit like this", which point also occurs in the context of an analysis entertaining that "the risks and costs of the Singapore summit seem entirely tolerable" while passing over any consideration of how the contrasting "momentum" of 2017 came about.

    The question↑ remains: On what does anyone base a presupposition of good faith about Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un which would, as such, defy virtually all evidence on record regarding these actors? It is an important question, as that is how hope is kindled, this time.


    Panda, Ankit. "Kim Jong Un Grabs the Headlines At Home, But What Did Trump Get From the Historic Summit?" The Diplomat. 14 June 2018. 14 June 2018.

    —————. "Trump's Singapore Summit Was a Bust—for the U.S." The Daily Beast. 12 June 2018. 14 June 2018.

    Sifton, John. "The Singapore Summit's Failure on North Korean Human Rights". The Diplomat. 14 June 2018. 14 June 2018.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Just for the record here is the contents of the statement signed by both parties at the summit.
    src :

    " President Donald J Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong-un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

    President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

    President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

    Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognising that mutual confidence-building can promote the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un state the following:

    1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
    2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
    3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work towards complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.
    4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
    Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance and overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. "

    Note the reference to the previous signing April 27 2018 Panmunjom between the leaders of South and North Korea. Which includes a commitment to the complete de-nuclearization of Korea.
    for the detail...
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    A note from history:

    • Goodby, James E. "Creating a Peace Regime in Korea". The Brookings Institution. 30 May 2006. 14 June 2018.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Why don't you ask the South Koreans?

    But Mr. Trump’s promise to end joint military exercises with Seoul left many South Koreans stunned. The annual exercises have been an integral part of the alliance, forming the bulwark of South Korea’s defense against North Korea and Seoul’s sense of security among bigger powers in the region.

    Ulchi Freedom Guardian is one of the largest military exercises in the world. The war games, which last year ran for 11 days, have involved some 17,500 American forces, including about 3,000 from outside the peninsula, and 50,000 South Korean troops. The exercises include computer simulations carried out in a large bunker south of Seoul intended to check the allies’ readiness to repel aggressions by North Korea.

    Mr. Trump’s announcement raised fears in the South Korean capital that Washington was making concessions too fast, before North Korea has dismantled its nuclear weapons.

    The South Korean Defense Ministry hurriedly issued a curt statement saying that it was trying to figure out Mr. Trump’s intentions.

    American officials said the military exercises are important because the allies use them to ensure readiness and promote the ability to operate with similar equipment and tactics. On a strategic level, they demonstrate the strength of the decades-long alliance with South Korea.

    How about the Japanese?

    US military drills with South Korea on the peninsula and Washington's troop presence there are "vital" for regional security, Japan said on Wednesday, raising concerns after US President Donald Trump said the manoeuvres would be halted.

    "The drills and the US military stationed in South Korea play a vital role in East Asia's security," Japan's Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera said when asked about Mr Trump's surprise announcement
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I don't speak the Korean language. To read what globalist propaganda writes about it makes no sense because it is clear that some South Koreans will not like it, so they will find some support for their position even without plainly lying.
    Who cares? The hatred between Japanese and Koreans is well known, so one can expect opposition to anything which is good for Korea.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Of course..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Pretty sure the 120 or so million Japanese care.

    And the relationship between South Korea and Japan are pretty good currently. They even co-hosted the World Cup in 2002.

    Unless of course you don't think they count?
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    So what? The question is why should anybody else care about what the Japanese think about this. (Beyond the globalists. They have to care, Japan has to remain a loyal vassal of the global rulers who will retake power in Washington after Trump. For everybody else, the issue is one between the two Koreas, and is not Japan's business.) Whatever, I have a hint for the Japanese: Throw the US bases out of Japanese territory, and I bet the danger of Kim doing anything against Japan in the case of war with the US would essentially decrease.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    North Korea poses a direct threat to Japan. US bases or not. So it is very much their business.

    You know, being part of East Asia and all..

    Frankly, your comment could be aimed at Russia and China first and foremost. It is none of their business, right?
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Trump, like all Republicans (he has solid Party support, including from all those people you call "globalists"), profits substantially from US military bases - especially the foreign ones.
    Not for the Chinese and Russians. Their interest in Japan's interests in Korea is keen, and probably more critical than whatever the two Koreas have going on internally.
    If they do that, they will develop nuclear weapons themselves (they are already closer than NK to a working, combat ready nuclear arsenal).
    It's a choice China would like to make. Russia would also prefer it. And since NK is a Chinese vassal - your term - China does have a say in the matter.
    I think they prefer US alliance to Chinese alliance, so far. And a nuclear NK - still in the future, but a much nearer future - would be as much a concern for them as for China. It would be a high barrier to peace, in particular, because it would reduce the deterrence of the conventional military along the border.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for something else.

    What an interesting straw man.

    In the end, all you have are word games. You did, after all, claim, "Trump and Kim have found a nice and simple solution", and that requires believing Donald Trump. You even went on to argue that, "The Trump solution is, or at least it looks like this now, simply peace," and here we might take a moment to make a particular point: If two arsonists set a building on fire and then hold a press conference to announce they have reached an agreement to stop pouring accelerant on this particular fire, then who among us would cheer their retirement from arson?

    It's true, though, I accept your pretense of confusion. Nobody really enjoys keeping up with your pretenses, and after a while, it doesn't really matter to the people expected to put up with it. So if you want to pretend the problem is noncompetency, well, I mean, y'know ... okay.

    In truth, Schmelzer, we're already aware the problem is your crippling bigotry. Consider that your response to Bells at #2796↑ is entirely subordinate to your fantasy. The proper answer, as you omitted from consideration, has to do with the international community. You know, like Bells↑ mentioned? Because she did illustrate the difference. The U.S. could probably freeze a number of those accounts just by clearing their throats and asking certain neighbors to deal with the parts we know about, while some will remain outside American influence; to the one, diplomacy has resulted in arrangements by which certain issues run through China, which becomes even more complicated in the question of President Trump's corruption; to the other, we shouldn't expect Russia to stop abetting the regime, which also becomes even more complicated in the question of President Trump's corruption.

    Honestly, I don't really see how any of that part is obscure. It only gets complicated because you need some phantom caricature of America even more dysfunctional than the real caricature Americans have made of themselves over the years. No, really, as much as you need the "Obama regime" to be some abstract evil notion capable of bringing such outcomes as acts of will, you skip over the line about the international community in order to put on some pretense of demanding we think about Obama, and then orient your retort around that presumpton of unilateral will when, in fact, the actual answer is diplomacy preceding President Obama, i.e., the international community, and the failure of the "Obama regime" to go rattling cages like President Bush Jr. or Donald Trump in some clodhopping, heavy-handed, feelgood demonstration of polishing up machismo.

    The "Trump solution" is called Appeasement. Meanwhile, your analysis in that post seethes with anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism, and that is what it is, but the disdain you show rational discourse reminds that it isn't so much analysis but, rather two-bit political advocacy without a clue.


    Meanwhile, politics being what they are:

    Parts of the South Korean press framed the day as historic—"opening a new era of detente". But South Koreans have been here before. They remember the summits during the country's "sunshine policy" era when presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun both went to Pyongyang and met Kim's late father, Kim Jong-il. South Korea extended goodwill and investment in North Korea's direction during that period and ended up with nothing in return. Many South Koreans think they got burned then, so now they're simply taking a wait-and-see attitude. No wonder the financial markets in Seoul barely moved even as the theatrics in Singapore unfolded.

    In many respects, we're still left with the same questions that have been lingering ever since Trump spontaneously agreed in March to meet Kim in person .... The statement that Trump and Kim signed in Singapore does not begin to address these kinds of details, but it does suggest the two countries have made a commitment to iron out the details that could lead, at last, to the end of the cold war in northeast Asia.

    The big concession on the part of the Trump administration appears to be the suspension, at least for now, of the joint military exercises that regularly take place between the United States and South Korea. Trump even seemed to side with North Korea's longstanding objections by calling the war games "very provocative"—a view also held by some critics of the exercises in the United States and South Korea. Trump also told reporters that his long-term goal was to follow through with his campaign promise to bring home US troops stationed in South Korea.

    This kind of positioning from Trump is worrying for Seoul if it signals that the US and South Korea might soften their alliance. According to some reports, the South Korean government and even the US's own military command in Seoul were not consulted in advance about Trump's statement at a press conference shortly after his meeting with Kim that the US would suspend military exercises.

    The concern in South Korea is that its neighbour's militarism stems not from self-defence but from ambitions to reunify the peninsula on its terms. Indeed, many of the same people who applauded Trump last year when he was taking a more hawkish posture toward North Korea are now worried that he is getting ready to hand over South Korea to North Korea on a silver platter. Even South Koreans who are glad to see the current engagement with the North easing the heightened tensions of recent years aren't yet sure if they can trust Kim Jong-un.



    So Kim leaves Singapore having gained much of the international legitimacy the dynastic dictatorship has sought for decades. But the gifts from Trump did not end there. He also announced an end to US military exercises in the Korean peninsula—the "war games" which he said were costly and, deploying language Pyongyang itself might have used, "very provocative". Trump also hinted at an eventual withdrawal of the 28,000 US troops stationed in the Korean peninsula.

    And what did Kim give Trump in return for this bulging bag of goodies? The key concession, the one Trump repeatedly invoked, was a promise of "complete denuclearisation". Trump held this aloft as if it were a North Korean commitment to dismantle its arsenal, with work beginning right away. To be sure, such a commitment would be a major prize, one that would merit all the congratulation a beaming Trump was heaping on himself. But this is where you need to look at the small print.

    First, the text itself says merely: "The DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula." Kim has promised not "complete denuclearisation" but simply "to work toward" that end. Negotiators the world over know is the fudging language you use when you’ve extracted something less than a real commitment. Kim has offered only an aspiration, with no deadline or timetable, not a concrete plan.


    We might, then, also recall what Bells reminded in #2790↑:

    The third paragraph hints at North Korea's possible stance in the upcoming talks with US President Donald Trump. The paragraph states that stopping further nuclear tests is an important part of "worldwide disarmament". It is important to note here that the North Korean regime refers to "disarmament" and not "denuclearisation".


    This aspect remains unresolved; I reiterate an earlier note↑: Americans aren't leaving the Korean Peninsula, and neither are we giving up our nuclear weapons.

    And of that last, sure, it should seem an absurd statement of the self-evident.

    What can President Trump get, before a new Congress is sworn in? What does anyone think Trump can get that would win two thirds of the U.S. Senate before it gets even harder to win such margins?

    Don't get me wrong, McConnell would rush it to the floor for him, and try to change the rules to get around the Constitution, but some things are clear. Under what circumstances can Trump get what out of the U.S. Senate?


    Freedland, Jonathan. "Trump really has achieved a historic breakthrough—for the Kim dynasty". The Guardian. 12 June 2018. 14 June 2018.

    Schattle, Hans. "The view from Seoul: why the Trump-Kim 'deal' worries South Koreans". The Guardian. 12 June 2018. 14 June 2018.

    Shin, Chang-Hoon. "Did North Korea really commit to denuclearisation?" Al-Jazeera. 26 April 2018. 14 June 2018.

    See Also:

    Taylor, Adam. "Kim Jong-un Estimated To Have Up To $5 Billion In Secret Overseas Accounts". Business Insider. 13 March 2013. 14 June 2018.
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Except that there is an important difference: NK is yet in a state of war with the US, and Japan is full of American military bases, which are, clearly, legitimate targets for NK rockets if the ceasefire is broken. So, for this problem, there is a solution - to throw out the US bases. (Then we will see, by the way, if Japan is a good friend of the US who likes to have US bases or yet an occupied country. In the first case, the US will immediately after the first request of Japan go home.)

    Otherwise, full agreement. I have not whined that one is somehow obliged to care about what Russian and Chinese politicians or people think about all this. It is Iceaura who seems to think so:
    Who cares about their dreams? I doubt that Kim will give up his life insurance simply because China likes it. I doubt NK is a 100% vassal of China. Else, there would have been no UN sanctions against NK, China would have vetoed them away.

    (Repetitions without evidence of the thesis that NK is unable to put a nuclear bomb they have successfully tested 12 years ago on the top of an intercontinental rocket they have too disposed.)
    No. It requires to look at the document they signed and to understand what it means, what follows from the fact that they both have signed it. And it follows from my interpretation of the real meaning of the document that most of what Trump has told about this is a lie. I understand that this may be too difficult for you to understand, but this is not my problem.
    Arsonists have done their work in 1950. After 1953, there was no real fire. So, your comparison does not really fit. But, if you like to use this picture, ok, my variant. Trump throws a big bucket of water into a fire made by Obama, lying at the same time "no, this is not for extinguishing that fire, I will continue to arson in two years, don't worry".
    The word "appeasement" is the keyword that allows identifying warmongers. They always use it if they want to discredit some attempts to reach peace. BTW, even the appeasement of Munich 1938, even if it failed to preserve peace, was not that unreasonable or predatory as it is presented today based on knowledge what happened later.

    That the warmongers now cry is natural and expected. But one key aspect they don't cry about is IMHO the most interesting one:
    Why they don't cry about "the Korean Peninsula" instead of "Northern Korea"? Which gives Kim, on a silver plate, the justification of not denuclearizing, given that denuclearization includes now also the denuclearization of parts he cannot denuclearize himself?
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Does SK have nuclear weapons?
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    SK itself not. But the US has, and the US has bases there.

    Whatever the US will claim now about what is inside these bases, NK is now on equal foot. You want that NK believes the US claim that there are no nukes there? Fine, believe the claim of Kim that he has destroyed them all. Do you want inspections of NK territory? Ok, allow Kim to inspect the US bases.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And lots of US military and civilians which can be wiped out with just conventional weapons in a matter of hours, let alone short range nukes. You think we are in a good negotiating position?
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I think there can be no good negotiating position for the US after the Ghadafi murder if the aim is denuclearization of NK. The best negotiating position for this aim had China. They have tried, supporting UN sanctions, to pressure, but even they had no success. The regime has shown that it does not care about the fate of the people, and all you can reach with sanctions is to make the life of the people worse.

    With NK having nukes and intercontinental missiles the situation is very different from before. It is now almost impossible to force Kim to give all this up, and sanctions can no longer prevent that he has them. Sanctions can, of course, be quite helpful to prevent or delay the construction of such high tech things, but now all Kim needs are the resources to maintain them, maybe construct some more of the same they already have, which is both a lot easier and a lot harder to prevent with sanctions. Moreover, even if the sanctions give some results - NK building fewer rockets of the same type they already have, or hold them in worse maintenance conditions, this gives nothing essential, very different from the time before, where a year more without or with these weapons clearly make a difference.

    So, from a rational point of view, further sanctions make no sense. One has to accept the fact that Kim has these weapons, thus, has enough power to deter any regime change by force. Now, detente is the only thing which makes sense. Detente has worked against the communism, so there is a chance that it works here too.

    For detente, no big negotiation power is necessary. The main problem with detente is the interest of the globalists in tensions in this region which justifies strong US military presence there. Kim is certainly not a problem. Essentially the deal is simple: Make a reasonable peace between the two Koreas (with some phrases of peaceful reunification as an aim for the future in the contract, so that formally nobody has to give up the old pretense that it is the own side which should rule the whole of Korea), and you will get Silk road and pipeline transit income in exchange. South Korean will be happy with this too. After this, Kim has to lose something - all this transit income - if he goes wild.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately due to:
    • Current USA fear directed towards NK
    • ongoing extreme human rights abuses in NK
    detente is highly unlikely to be possible as a long term solution.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    None of the kind you specified, no. That is typical of fascist governance - no "transformation" necessary.
    His life insurance has been China's army and nukes - still is. Also China's market and supply chain. His slipshod nuke program is more of a provocation than a threat so far - MAD only works if both sides suffer greatly.
    Unless Kim's regime runs into trouble, or Kim develops ambitions of the wrong kind. Then detente - which has been the basic status quo for fifty years anyway - can fall apart in a hurry.
    China made good use of them, forcing Kim to the table to weaken Trump and check Kim's nuclear ambitions simultaneously. Was that a coincidence, you think?
    The other problem is that Kim's regime has little resilience and an economic organization of a kind famous for failure. His regime is likely to crash or blow apart on its own.

    Meanwhile, the President of the US gave China - via NK - what it wanted, in exchange for a half a billion in real estate business and some promises of more in NK.
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I'm tentatively positive about Trump's meeting. Whatever concessions he seems to have made can be undone in a moment, someone has to make the first step. And that movie they made was brilliant. It cut through the language differences to illustrate a vision for the future, and we know Kim watches American and S. Korean movies. Of course this could all fall apart in the details, then Trump would have to restart the Korean War.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That wasn't the first step. Fifty years.

    Trump cannot undo the concessions without trouble from China - essentially, he would need Chinese cooperation and permission. His loose language, failure to write things down, and failure to keep his South Korean and US military allies informed and prepared, has granted the Chinese the privilege of interpreting the summit agreements to their advantage - they prefer to lift sanctions, for example, and so they publicly establish that as part of the summit agreements.

    As there never was much chance of intentional nuclear war, the continuation of the nuclear status quo would be no big deal - except of course in whatever loss of US prestige and influence. The Chinese will take care of the nuclear stuff, to the extent it is a real threat, and they are now established as the regional power.

    The latest Republican Presidency, like the last one, will wallow along to the next mess unperturbed in its travels. Trump or no Trump.

Share This Page