3 ms·

> I strongly doubt it has anything to do with Trump or the US. Why so strong a doubt though? South Korea's officials say "Clearly, credit goes to President Tru

by rdtsc 9y ago

> I strongly doubt it has anything to do with Trump or the US. Why so strong a doubt though? South Korea's officials say "Clearly, credit goes to President Trump". One would think SK foreign minister would have some insight into the process... > And Trump has not done anything significant - he's just full of bluster and hot air which anyone outside of the US (and most of the US too) know. It is interesting that just a few months ago everyone was sure he was going to start a war in the Korean peninsula and it wasn't just hot air. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wjppgm/trump-north-korea-strategy-start-war https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wjppgm/trump-north-korea... http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-north-korea-ready-for-war-20170414-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-north-korea-ready-for-war... As soon as they started talking about peace, it is back to being hot air again and have nothing to do with it? We could at least say perhaps it had a bad influence and we would have seen peace sooner, but it's really hard to say "he had no influence" at this point.

tobtoh 9y ago
> One would think SK foreign minister would have some insight into the process I'm sure he does - and he's not going to say what he really thinks in public. How do you think politics actually works? SK relies on the US for security, they aren't going to be stupid enough to insult the US publicly by saying that they aren't needed (especially when the President is someone who has clearly demonstrated he needs his ego stroked). There is also the asian cultural norms around 'saving face' which affects how and what they say. You avoid insulting those you want as an ally, and if buttering up someone is going to get a good reaction, might as well do that if it doesn't cost you anything. > It is interesting that just a few months ago everyone was sure he was going to start a war in the Korean peninsula and it wasn't just hot air. That's what the media reports looking to sensationalise everything. Just about everything between the NK and the US over the past few decades has been bluster and hot air - this isn't the first time NK has promised to denuclearise or have a peace treaty - the reality is that NK as just been getting on with whatever program they wanted to do regardless of what they or the US says publicly. Kim is still in power, and they have nukes.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > I'm sure he does She does. Sorry I did forget to include the original link https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung... it is Amanpour interviewing South Korean Foreign Minister, Kang Kyung-wha. > they aren't going to be stupid enough to insult the US publicly by saying that they aren't needed (especially when the President is someone who has clearly demonstrated he needs his ego stroked). There is something else in between singing praises and insults. Could have just been a generic praise for all parties. The interviewer didn't asks "who credit goes to". Could have praised her own boss for a change "look what we've done". > the reality is that NK as just been getting on with whatever program they wanted to do regardless of what they or the US says publicly. Kim is still in power, and they have nukes. Exactly and this is the first time they met. She (the foreign minister) said "I feel like someone stepped on the accelerator" since the beginning of the year. And well, Trump has certainly been preoccupied with NK for a while. Again, I can at least see saying "well he made it worse" by his actions and comments but I don't see saying he has nothing to do with it.
  - tobtoh 9y ago
    > And well, Trump has certainly been preoccupied with NK for a while. Again, I can at least see saying "well he made it worse" by his actions and comments but I don't see saying he has nothing to do with it. Just because Trump has talked about NK doesn't necessarily equate to him being the cause of actions that a country takes. Look at the history of NK/US relations ... there are decades of threats and sanctions against NK, none of them have had any real effect. Every now and then, NK makes overtures about denuclearisation and/or peace treaty, but eventually reverses course. In every case, they have done it on their schedule and on their terms. So Trumps threats are really just another in a long string of US theats against NK. And Trump has less credibility than other presidents given he is well known to lie and bluster. So there is no evidence that NK would feel more threatened by Trump than previous Presidents. What is different is China. China is in ascendency, particularly in the Pacific where it is blatantly trying to exert its influence everywhere in the Pacific. And NK can't survive without China's support and trade. So one scenario is China hoping to evict the US from the Korean Peninsular (as one of the conditions of NK/SK peace treaty/nuclear disarmament). NK is the puppet to make this happen. That is far more likely the cause of NK actions than Trump. China is what makes today's scenario different from the previous similar situations. My main point is that I see nothing different from the US side than what has happened in the past. So hence my statement that I doubt that Trump/US played much of a part in NK actions today. What the underlying driver is I can't be certain, although China is my bet.

by rdtsc 9y ago

tobtoh 9y ago

> One would think SK foreign minister would have some insight into the process I'm sure he does - and he's not going to say what he really thinks in public. How do you think politics actually works? SK relies on the US for security, they aren't going to be stupid enough to insult the US publicly by saying that they aren't needed (especially when the President is someone who has clearly demonstrated he needs his ego stroked). There is also the asian cultural norms around 'saving face' which affects how and what they say. You avoid insulting those you want as an ally, and if buttering up someone is going to get a good reaction, might as well do that if it doesn't cost you anything. > It is interesting that just a few months ago everyone was sure he was going to start a war in the Korean peninsula and it wasn't just hot air. That's what the media reports looking to sensationalise everything. Just about everything between the NK and the US over the past few decades has been bluster and hot air - this isn't the first time NK has promised to denuclearise or have a peace treaty - the reality is that NK as just been getting on with whatever program they wanted to do regardless of what they or the US says publicly. Kim is still in power, and they have nukes.

rdtsc 9y ago
> I'm sure he does She does. Sorry I did forget to include the original link https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung... it is Amanpour interviewing South Korean Foreign Minister, Kang Kyung-wha. > they aren't going to be stupid enough to insult the US publicly by saying that they aren't needed (especially when the President is someone who has clearly demonstrated he needs his ego stroked). There is something else in between singing praises and insults. Could have just been a generic praise for all parties. The interviewer didn't asks "who credit goes to". Could have praised her own boss for a change "look what we've done". > the reality is that NK as just been getting on with whatever program they wanted to do regardless of what they or the US says publicly. Kim is still in power, and they have nukes. Exactly and this is the first time they met. She (the foreign minister) said "I feel like someone stepped on the accelerator" since the beginning of the year. And well, Trump has certainly been preoccupied with NK for a while. Again, I can at least see saying "well he made it worse" by his actions and comments but I don't see saying he has nothing to do with it.
- tobtoh 9y ago
  > And well, Trump has certainly been preoccupied with NK for a while. Again, I can at least see saying "well he made it worse" by his actions and comments but I don't see saying he has nothing to do with it. Just because Trump has talked about NK doesn't necessarily equate to him being the cause of actions that a country takes. Look at the history of NK/US relations ... there are decades of threats and sanctions against NK, none of them have had any real effect. Every now and then, NK makes overtures about denuclearisation and/or peace treaty, but eventually reverses course. In every case, they have done it on their schedule and on their terms. So Trumps threats are really just another in a long string of US theats against NK. And Trump has less credibility than other presidents given he is well known to lie and bluster. So there is no evidence that NK would feel more threatened by Trump than previous Presidents. What is different is China. China is in ascendency, particularly in the Pacific where it is blatantly trying to exert its influence everywhere in the Pacific. And NK can't survive without China's support and trade. So one scenario is China hoping to evict the US from the Korean Peninsular (as one of the conditions of NK/SK peace treaty/nuclear disarmament). NK is the puppet to make this happen. That is far more likely the cause of NK actions than Trump. China is what makes today's scenario different from the previous similar situations. My main point is that I see nothing different from the US side than what has happened in the past. So hence my statement that I doubt that Trump/US played much of a part in NK actions today. What the underlying driver is I can't be certain, although China is my bet.