> It’s also “highly rational” for the NK leadership to run a autocratic dictatorship, brutally crack down on dissidents... Maybe it is rational. NK situation i

> It’s also “highly rational” for the NK leadership to run a autocratic dictatorship, brutally crack down on dissidents... Maybe it is rational. NK situation is very fragile. To keep it they need to minimize risks of some riots or disobedience to the government. I think you are confusing terms "moral behaviour" and "rational behaviour". One can be completely immoral and at the same time highly rational. > Bill Clinton’s administration tried a much more conciliatory approach, but it’s not like the North Koreans have been especially cooperative partners in renormalizing relations and deescalating the conflict over the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework Maybe I misunderstood something but article you are referring to claims that US take their part in breaking the agreement. I reason from that, that blaming NK in breaking an agreement and marking NK as uncooperative and unwilling to deescalate is just wrong. > in their current political position NK has little reason to negotiate in good faith. NK has a lot of reasons to negotiate. But NK cannot let itself to show weakness in initiating negotiations and taking one-sided deescalation steps. Its the rules of deescalation. Peaceful process of deescalation can be initiated by strongest side only, and at least first steps should be reciprocal and reciprocal not on the paper but in reality too, judging by results of that steps. If weakest party try to start it would be the sign of weakness, sign of relying on mercy, and the result of such a try might be the reverse -- futher escalation from strongest in hope that weakest just die from terror and drops all his claims. If weakest party start deescalating it would bury all his hope for some sort of compromise.