3 ms·

> 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

by tobtoh 8y 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.

rdtsc 8y ago
> 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. Except that unlike other presidents, he is also crazy. He ran for President because Obama made fun of him. A crazy bully is a lot more dangerous than a smart bully. A smart bully will be afraid of consequences, a crazy one behaves erratically. In a way the crazy image is, I day say, benefiting in this case. Can you imagine Obama both calling NK leader short and fat, then swearing to nuke him? I don't. That's pretty different I'd say. > 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). If this was all done by China, why would SK agree to that? Have they been duped and being taken advantage of? So far from what I've read US troops leaving is not a precondition of a declaration of peace and further strengthening of ties. From China's side, would this peace process move NK closer to SK. Perhaps more cooperation. Economic ties even? Why would they lose their puppet state and buffer zone between themselves and US ally. > My main point is that I see nothing different from the US side than what has happened in the past. Well what did Pompeo talk about with Kim? I don't know, it was "secret" meeting. But pretty sure it wasn't about nothing. And I'll still go with the Foreign Minister said. You might say your analysis shows nothing happened, but she is making pretty strong claims. I am inclined to believe her words. I guess we'll have to wait and see as more details come out.
- tobtoh 8y ago
  Agree he is a crazy bully ... but an emphasis on the bully bit. ie bullys don't pick on those that can fight back. With its nukes, NK can fight back - if not against the US, against SK. I agree that as a crazy President, Trump can destabilise a lot of the world, but I don't believe even he would start a nuclear war. > If this was all done by China, why would SK agree to that? Because it would mean peace for them - it's either accept olive branches when they are offered or remain permanently at war. In a way, they are clutching at straws - but I can't say I blame them. > Well what did Pompeo talk about with Kim? I don't know, it was "secret" meeting. But pretty sure it wasn't about nothing. There have been plenty of talks - open and secret - between the US and NK in the past. Nothing new here. WaPo had a good commentary on the history of failed peace talks: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/opinion/north-korea-south-korea-peace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/opinion/north-korea-south... - 1992: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North and the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. - 2000: the South-North Joint Declaration - 2007: South-North Joint declaration All of those were about peace treaties and non-aggression. None of them went anywhere.

by tobtoh 8y ago

rdtsc 8y ago

> 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. Except that unlike other presidents, he is also crazy. He ran for President because Obama made fun of him. A crazy bully is a lot more dangerous than a smart bully. A smart bully will be afraid of consequences, a crazy one behaves erratically. In a way the crazy image is, I day say, benefiting in this case. Can you imagine Obama both calling NK leader short and fat, then swearing to nuke him? I don't. That's pretty different I'd say. > 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). If this was all done by China, why would SK agree to that? Have they been duped and being taken advantage of? So far from what I've read US troops leaving is not a precondition of a declaration of peace and further strengthening of ties. From China's side, would this peace process move NK closer to SK. Perhaps more cooperation. Economic ties even? Why would they lose their puppet state and buffer zone between themselves and US ally. > My main point is that I see nothing different from the US side than what has happened in the past. Well what did Pompeo talk about with Kim? I don't know, it was "secret" meeting. But pretty sure it wasn't about nothing. And I'll still go with the Foreign Minister said. You might say your analysis shows nothing happened, but she is making pretty strong claims. I am inclined to believe her words. I guess we'll have to wait and see as more details come out.

tobtoh 8y ago
Agree he is a crazy bully ... but an emphasis on the bully bit. ie bullys don't pick on those that can fight back. With its nukes, NK can fight back - if not against the US, against SK. I agree that as a crazy President, Trump can destabilise a lot of the world, but I don't believe even he would start a nuclear war. > If this was all done by China, why would SK agree to that? Because it would mean peace for them - it's either accept olive branches when they are offered or remain permanently at war. In a way, they are clutching at straws - but I can't say I blame them. > Well what did Pompeo talk about with Kim? I don't know, it was "secret" meeting. But pretty sure it wasn't about nothing. There have been plenty of talks - open and secret - between the US and NK in the past. Nothing new here. WaPo had a good commentary on the history of failed peace talks: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/opinion/north-korea-south-korea-peace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/opinion/north-korea-south... - 1992: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North and the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. - 2000: the South-North Joint Declaration - 2007: South-North Joint declaration All of those were about peace treaties and non-aggression. None of them went anywhere.