It’s jockeying for position - I am not sure which option in the poll matches that most closely. Kim thinks/thought that Trump wanted a summit at all costs, so he was dicking around to make it look like he had the upper hand. Trump cancelled it, because there was too much dicking around.
I don’t know if this can be classed as a wisely strategic move by Trump - he has done a million deals in his life, including many with people who were trying this kind of jockeying against him. OK, the Northies aren’t serious about a negotiation this time - cancel the meeting, and maybe next time. That’s how the game is played, especially when one side (NK) has a lot more to gain and lose from the negotiation.
Another indication why all the talk about how Pyongyang was playing Trump for a fool and was going to get him to agree to a bad deal and be taken advantage of and give up everything and get nothing in return - that was nonsense. Trump doesn’t make those kinds of deals.
I suppose it is a waste of electrons to point out that the SDMB collectively is, to put it mildly, prone to exaggerations on the subject of Trump. As Vito Corleone said, it is a help to have your enemies under-estimate you.
I think NK would love to talk to the US, but they don’t have any interest in denuclearization. If the talks depend on that, then they are not interested. They’d love to talk to us about getting the US to recognize the government and establishing formal relations. They’d love to talk to us about getting our forces out of the Korean Peninsula. They’d love to talk to us about us giving them aid. They’d love to get a photo op. They’d love a lot of things, but they do not want to talk about getting rid of nukes. No way, no how.
The idea that Trump doesn’t make bad deals, or isn’t capable of it, strikes me as the type of silliness that you criticize in your next paragraph. Yes, he’s capable of making bad deals. Based on the facts of how this now-canceled meeting came about, it seems entirely reasonable to suspect that Trump was making decisions on a whim, with no significant in-depth study, research, and consultation with experts.
Forgot about this part – what does NK have to lose? They’re the ones who want to change the status quo (gain legitimacy, trade, etc.). The US has a lot to lose in that we stand to be made to look like chumps, offering legitimacy to NK in exchange for absolutely nothing.
It ain’t over yet. Talking is better than shooting.
I’m hoping something productive may still happen. I know Kim will never give up Nukes. But there’s still the possibility of normalizing relations. Step back from the dangerous place we are now.
They could lose their nuclear program, the opportunity to cease being a pariah nation, economic and food assistance so their people don’t starve, and all the other things that the West and civilized nations have to offer. And Kim and company could wind up like Ghaddafi, which would be a loss from their point of view.
That’s the kind of deal that Trump didn’t go for.
I don’t think Kim gets much legitimacy from being told “if you are just going to fuck around, forget it, and get back to us when you’re serious”. Sure, North Korea and the SDMB are going to spin this as a humiliation for Trump and the US, but that would happen no matter what.
Was Kim ever serious about a summit? Maybe not. Would he have given up his nukes? No chance. Did he see this as a chance to posture and make himself feel like he was sitting at the big kids’ table? Sure. Was he acting like a big kid? Nope.
If he wants to change the status quo, he has been told “that’s not how to go about it”. Whether that sinks in or not is up to him.
From a summit? I don’t understand this. The only way I can see NK losing its nuclear program is either voluntarily (in which it’s not a risk), or by force. And I don’t see how having a summit increases the chances of a war.
These are potential gains, not risks. Kim can’t lose what he doesn’t have. These are reasons to agree to a summit, from NK’s perspective.
But again, I don’t understand how agreeing to a summit makes this more likely.
He agreed to a meeting, which does give NK and Kim some degree of legitimacy. I’ll note that I don’t necessarily disagree with having a summit, it just seems to me that in this case Trump and co did no homework and preparation, and the collapse of the summit was inevitable, thus making him look even more foolish (and lazy). And not reflecting poorly on Kim at all, since everyone already figured he was a dishonest game-player (at best).
ISTM that Kim risked nothing in asking for a summit, with plenty to gain. We risked looking foolish by agreeing to a summit with an untrustworthy partner without preparation, and I think we now look a bit more foolish than we did before agreeing to it. This is not the end of the world in the scheme of things, but it seems pretty clearly to me to show the lack of seriousness and preparation that Trump and his team put forward with respect to foreign policy. A serious and well prepared administration would not have agreed to a summit without ensuring that there was a very low chance that it would fall apart in the coming weeks and months. I think it’s quite reasonable to conclude that Trump’s team did not ensure this.
I don’t see how we agreed to a summit without preparation - I thought Trump cancelled the summit because the NK team never showed up in Singapore to prepare.
Which has now been cancelled pending signs that Kim is serious. So I doubt they gained much legitimacy.
Probably not, but we still look pretty foolish for agreeing to a summit without the preparation that probably would have told us that collapse was pretty likely. Further, he did gain a bit of legitimacy from the (ridiculous) praise that Trump repeatedly buttered him up with. Again, not the end of the world, but not a serious or coherent foreign policy, IMO. Do you really think my criticism is unreasonable (and should I assume you don’t disagree with the parts of my posts that you didn’t answer)?
An NPR reporter talked about past negotiations with NK. She said that it isn’t at all unusual for NK to skip some preparatory meetings. That’s what they do. I don’t remember if she suggested why, or whether that meant that such meetings don’t happen, or if it’s just something where the prelims have to be rescheduled multiple times but will finally happen.
Her take was that people who know much about NK know this pattern and would not be shocked by it. Since I know jack squat about NK, I can’t say if she’s even close to right.
It was during the preparation that the collapse occurred. So again, we didn’t agree to a summit without preparation.
Yes to the first, no to the second. It isn’t reasonable to say that we agreed to a summit without preparation, and I don’t think I can explain what a missed opportunity is any more clearly.
Trump announced that the meeting was taking place, along with the time and location. I think that can reasonably be described as agreeing to the meeting. I have trouble understanding how saying that a meeting is taking place, and the US will attend, isn’t agreeing to the meeting.
I thought I had some pretty reasonable and thoughtful pieces of criticism. No hyperbole, just criticism based on the facts that occurred, including the fact that Trump said that there will be a meeting without, IMO, serious and thoughtful preparation.
Indeed. I’ve been in many meetings where there was a preliminary meeting to set the table for the real deal. Usually, but not always, the bigwigs don’t attend the preliminary meeting. It’s the smallwigs agreeing to rules, etc.
“The highly anticipated meeting between Kim Jong Un and myself will take place in Singapore on June 12th. We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!”
I just reread what I posted and realized I wasn’t as clear as I intended. I meant to say that yes, they agreed to the big meeting, then they scheduled a preliminary meeting to hash out some lower-level details.
So the cause for the breakdown is on North Korea?? It had nothing to do with American political blowhard novices letting Kim know that the Libya method was the way to go? Good god.
Criticism that is based on false statements isn’t reasonable or thoughtful. You claimed that Trump had agreed to a meeting without preparation, which is wrong and has been disproven, and that the preparation wasn’t adequate to show that NK wasn’t serious, even though it was the preparation that showed NK wasn’t serious.
