|
Grapplejack posted:If Trump ends up accidentally solving the Korean issue I swear to God... It would go to show that just directly talking to NK goes a long way. I hope Trump meets with Kim directly.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:If Trump ends up accidentally solving the Korean issue I swear to God... Would you credit a natural disaster bringing together enemies with solving their dispute?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Would you credit a natural disaster bringing together enemies with solving their dispute? Yes? It's super weird but if this peace process actually happens and if there's meaningful progress made... I'm not sure there's a way to avoid crediting Trump and Pompeo (and all the federal employees) for making it possible in the first place. Regardless if this is something that could have been accomplished by any administration, the fact remains that if it happens, it will have begun under this one. You can (and should) criticize all the terrible things about the Trump administration while also giving them legitimate credit for the positive things, what few that there are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:36
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The only reason why Trump is succeeding is that everyone involved realizes that he really is stupid and unstable enough to start a nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Telephones posted:The only reason why Trump is succeeding is that everyone involved realizes that he really is stupid and unstable enough to start a nuclear war. Wouldn't this just be madman theory? Something which seems to have been until recently successfully deployed by, among others, Kim Jong-Un?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Wouldn't this just be madman theory? Something which seems to have been until recently successfully deployed by, among others, Kim Jong-Un? The ideal madman strategy is faking being unstable and violent. Trump might suddenly walk away from the table and start bombing depending on his mood that day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
If something good does come of this, Moon will get all the credit and the Nobel. Still odd to see Kim give up US troops in South Korea and no end to joint exercises this early, but I can't imagine him giving up much more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Trump has picked fights even with close allies, we might be making progress entirely because Trump has more respect for authoritarians who 'have it easy and fair'; but even Nixon did some good things and it isn't something that outweighs everything else. We also have no idea what can or will happen as a result and we won't know until it does. Also good luck ratifying a "North Korea can have nuclear weapons treaty" in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Yes? You could credit Trump for being part of the solution, but not solving it. That's like trying to open a pickle jar, giving it to someone else to try who succeeds and then saying you've loosened it for them. Due credit to who actually gets North Korea to sign a peace treaty with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
We're probably getting ahead of ourselves. Kim giving up this much so early will either be seen by hawks as a sign of weakness or a way for Kim to walk away if negotiations fail and say "Hey, I tried to give them everything!" Very distinct possibility the Americans push too hard or give Kim nothing in return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
What it takes to believe "Trump solved it!" is that all it took get North Korea to completely give up its nuclear program and drop every major demand is a few rounds of sanctions and sit-down with a complete idiot that just found out today that the Korean War hasn't officially ended. They've had every opportunity to do that for years. There's going to be a price to pay, possibly a price that only Trump is dumb enough to entertain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Wouldn't this just be madman theory? Something which seems to have been until recently successfully deployed by, among others, Kim Jong-Un? Madman theory is taking advantage of your opponent by pretending to be insane. Actually being insane is not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:We're probably getting ahead of ourselves. Kim giving up this much so early will either be seen by hawks as a sign of weakness or a way for Kim to walk away if negotiations fail and say "Hey, I tried to give them everything!" Very distinct possibility the Americans push too hard or give Kim nothing in return. You're assuming that the US still has any real leverage or justifiable reason to be involved in this whole affair. The US isn't immune to being outplayed in the middle of a crisis, especially with someone at the helm who undermines our geopolitical legitimacy like Trump. It's far more likely that the meeting between Xi and Kim in Beijing has laid the groundwork for cutting all the old geopolitical red tape, with Xi basically saying to Kim, "Look, you can't do this stupid poo poo, but that doesn't mean we have to jump to the US' meaningless and stupid tune anymore". And it makes sense; why would North Korea seem to be so cooperative at this stage (rumors of a peace settlement with the South, not making the removal of US a condition for denuclearization), if they weren't crazy (unlikely), desperate (maybe a bit), or absolutely confident that someone major now had their back? So yeah, North Korea can absolutely afford to look "weak" in the eyes of US hawks, because it's likely that the US doesn't really matter to them as a threat anymore. If they're now going to be formally backed by China (and I'm willing to bet that has always been a prime factor of concern in any Pentagon thinking about a North Korean conflict), then the hawks in the US are just going to have to go sit and spin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:You're assuming that the US still has any real leverage Huh, I thought people claimed nukes cause leverage to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Huh, I thought people claimed nukes cause leverage to exist. Ssshhhh, let the hypocrisy continue - I'm still compiling here. Also, it's hilarious that the ruling Elite will allow anything but the status quo. Watch this blow over like the rest of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Huh, I thought people claimed nukes cause leverage to exist. They serve as a negotiable commodity for political gain, if nothing else. Can't negotiate if you have nothing good to offer at the table, after all. And sometimes, the Rubicon has to be crossed for anything to change, good or bad. That's the gist of what I'm arguing above; once the absolute nightmare scenario comes to pass like North Korea's nukes, then the justification for something like the Korean War has been, and all the political assumptions bound up around it, are basically destroyed and a new paradigm has to be constructed and accepted. China, under Xi, has probably done that and helped North Korea "win". The US, under Trump, is probably going to idiotically try to reverse the clock and fail at it. WarpedNaba posted:Also, it's hilarious that the ruling Elite will allow anything but the status quo. Watch this blow over like the rest of 'em. Imagine you're already pretty wealthy and powerful, in your own little nation. Now imagine if your rich neighbor next door says "Look, do this for us, and not only will you be wealthier, more powerful, and more privileged, but we'll help to make sure the world is your oligarchical oyster." That's kind of the crux, and the conflict, behind how China sees North Korea and the US sees it. The US has always been pretty dogmatic around wanting regime change and reform, while China (being nearer to North Korea geographically and politically) has probably been more open to just giving up the charade and engaging with North Korea as it is, human rights warts and all. So if China has basically sealed a preliminary deal with North Korea for aid, investment, and protection in exchange for giving up their nukes and engaging in a program of political and economic reforms (with the current regime staying in power indefinitely through some "transitionary emergency period" justification or whatever)...why would the current elite in North Korea reject that? They can only gain, especially if the alternative is that they potentially embarrass and piss China off while that country is trying to show off its diplomatic and geopolitical chops on the world stage. For all we know, the ruling elite may have told Kim to go to Beijing and prostrate himself to Xi exactly to make the above happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:They serve as a negotiable commodity for political gain, if nothing else. Can't negotiate if you have nothing good to offer at the table, after all. And sometimes, the Rubicon has to be crossed for anything to change, good or bad. North Korea has won nothing, certainly it hasn't won security.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:North Korea has won nothing, certainly it hasn't won security. And they haven't given up anything, either. Lets see how this unfolds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:That's kind of the crux, and the conflict, behind how China sees North Korea and the US sees it. The US has always been pretty dogmatic around wanting regime change and reform, while China (being nearer to North Korea geographically and politically) has probably been more open to just giving up the charade and engaging with North Korea as it is, human rights warts and all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:So if China has basically sealed a preliminary deal with North Korea for aid, investment, and protection in exchange for giving up their nukes and engaging in a program of political and economic reforms (with the current regime staying in power indefinitely through some "transitionary emergency period" justification or whatever)...why would the current elite in North Korea reject that? You said it yourself, political and economic reforms. They gain a slight increase in opulence in return for a liberalisation of both markets and rights to assembly, which tend to have predictable consequences in The ruling party need to maintain control of the masses, and they currently have a system that can be slooooowly flexed to change. Suddenly calling off a decades-old war in a 'military-first' country like theirs isn't slow, and is going to cause a fuckton of internal power plays. Not to mention a sudden upswing in the possibility of a peasant uprising if a Major decides he could aim for the throne now that there's something to spin as 'The Kims have abandoned the sacred way! Traitors! Traitors to the WarpedNaba fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:North Korea has won nothing, certainly it hasn't won security. Knock yourself out with an alternate scenario for what's going on and what could happen, then. Just don't get too invested in some kind of GI Joe riding in to the save the day conclusion. Like Dante80 said, let's wait and see what happens. Charlz Guybon posted:China explicitly backing up NK with an alliance would make things worse long term not better, because it allows Un to be more reckless via conventional means. He can shell border islands, and engage in running naval battles in the East Sea because any attempt to retaliate would drag the Chinese in. Or maybe China takes on the role that the US has currently held in South Korea? Or maybe the conflict ends? Because this Korean situation has been dragging on for nearly seventy years. The original fighters are dead or nearly so, multiple generations have been born since it started, and a lot of the world is probably waking up to the idea that the US isn't as powerful, stable, or eternally reliable as they might have imagined, and maybe it's time to get some distance from US involvement and influence in their affairs. At this point, it's as if the Korean War is being "fought" solely to keep justifying that the war has to be fought (and mainly from a US perspective). If China decides to pick up the ball for North Korea (with the carrot/stick approach of aid and protection , or the same military action the US already keeps as a background threat if they misbehave), it doesn't really change anything that I can see. Except for maybe injecting some brutal, eye-opening honesty about the changing status of the US in international politics, which I think a lot of people in this thread find disconcerting to think about. WarpedNaba posted:You said it yourself, political and economic reforms. They gain a slight increase in opulence in return for a liberalisation of both markets and rights to assembly, which tend to have predictable consequences in On the other hand, what happened in the Soviet Union six decades ago doesn't necessarily mean that the same applies today in regards to North Korea, which has mutated into a totally new political context? And you're contradicting yourself; are the North Korean people secretly champing at the bit to revolt the minute they get a big enough sliver of freedom, or are they all brainwashed propaganda drones champing at the bit to uphold the purity of Juche thought if they perceive it to be betrayed? If they're on the knife's edge of rebellion, why hasn't it happened already? Are they just stupid cowards, mere livestock reacting aggressively to the most base and intensely obvious stimuli they perceive? Or do they know the score, and know that the game is currently against them, and they're coping as best they can? I also find it funny that the article you linked to the Novocherkassk massacre cites shortages of provisions and price increases as a prime factor for the initial riot. Hmm, maybe taking steps to improve and stabilize the material well-being of North Korea would avert that risk, you think? WarpedNaba posted:The ruling party need to maintain control of the masses, and they currently have a system that can be slooooowly flexed to change. Suddenly calling off a decades-old war in a 'military-first' country like theirs isn't slow, and is going to cause a fuckton of internal power plays. Not to mention a sudden upswing in the possibility of a peasant uprising if a Major decides he could aim for the throne now that there's something to spin as 'The Kims have abandoned the sacred way! Traitors! Traitors to the Or, as I'm theorizing, there's accord in the North Korean government among the various factions (or at least those that matter), and Kim's trip to Beijing was as much him being a delegate to represent that unified power bloc and their interests, as he was acting in an official leadership capacity (though it's probably a blur as to how separate those two roles are for him, anyway). And you're ignoring that if China is essentially backing North Korea and having more direct and open relations with them, then it takes a lot of pressure off of the North Korean government. It means they have someone in their corner, someone who is a major power to boot, and that keeps away the US and its demands for radical reforms and change while helping to mitigate adjustment pains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
I would consider NKs signaling to let the US keep troops in the region, if true, to show the opposite regarding China; It would suggest that their relationship has deteriorated to a pretty severe degree. I find it extremely hard to believe Xi would ever be willing to let Americans keep troops there, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
This seems unlikely to help. https://twitter.com/Joshua_Pollack/status/987159168539865090
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:Or maybe China takes on the role that the US has currently held in South Korea? Or maybe the conflict ends? Or maybe the geopolitical status of the US hinges on far more things than the personality of the President at any given time, most of which are far more important and enduring. Which is also something that people seem to be having trouble comprehending. Not that I blame them since virtually the entirety of media discourse in the USA nowadays is 24/7 Trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
I thought this was a good article.Kim Jong-un has a maximum pressure and engagement strategy of his own posted:Just a few months ago, the world braced for a possible war on the Korean Peninsula. But now Seoul and Pyongyang are reportedly planning to announce an official end to the Korean War as they enter the final days of planning for a summit between Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. (An armistice ended the military conflict that lasted from 1950-1953, but the two Koreas are technically still at war.) Obviously I'm glad to hear news about summits rather than how many people died, but this is sort of what it looks like when North Korea is winning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:Knock yourself out with an alternate scenario for what's going on and what could happen, then. The gently caress you talking about. Here's the scenario: nothing appears to be changing at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I would consider NKs signaling to let the US keep troops in the region, if true, to show the opposite regarding China; It would suggest that their relationship has deteriorated to a pretty severe degree. I find it extremely hard to believe Xi would ever be willing to let Americans keep troops there, so... That or they just admitted that the demand was a non-starter and are easily willing to toss it overboard to get the meeting setup. That said, I am highly suspicious North Korea would actually be willing to give up their program. As for "winning" North Korea looking reasonable while still holding on their nukes can be considered a victory, maybe not total but it is something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
 NORTH KOREA HAS JUST AGREED TO DE-NUCLEARIZE!!!!!! quote:North Korea says it has suspended nuclear and long-range missile tests and plans to close its nuclear test site. AAAAAAAAAAAAA gently caress YEAAAAAAAA!!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Can't believe how well Kim Jong-Un has done tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
IIRC that test site was already getting hosed up from too many nuclear tests and was about one more test from collapsing. More importantly: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-20/north-korea-s-kim-says-no-need-for-more-nuclear-missile-tests quote:“I solemnly declare that we have accomplished credible weaponization of nuclear forces,” Kim was quoted as saying at a Friday ruling party meeting. “Our decision to suspend nuclear tests is part of the world’s important steps for nuclear disarmament and our republic will join global efforts to completely suspend nuclear tests.” Someone should also ask if the missile launch test ban includes their planned satellite launch in September.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:
They could agree that the sky is blue and I'd still peek outside to check. This means nothing. OneEightHundred posted:IIRC that test site was already getting hosed up from too many nuclear tests and was about one more test from collapsing. Beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:
Suspending tests and denuclearizing are very very different things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:
It's a good step, but a suspension of testing, and the closing of a site (which noted above, is not in good shape), is not the same thing as de-nuclearization. Also, DPRK has gone back on its word on things in the past (not to absolve the US for its own backsliding).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:It's a good step, but a suspension of testing, and the closing of a site (which noted above, is not in good shape), is not the same thing as de-nuclearization. Also, DPRK has gone back on its word on things in the past (not to absolve the US for its own backsliding).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
quote:But it’s far more likely that [Moon and his advisers] see the need to project to Washington and the South Korean public a firm commitment to the alliance in the short term. This is necessary if the Moon camp is to put over confederation when the formation of this North-South body — or some big step in that direction, like a formal conclusion of hostilities — is publicly agreed upon at the upcoming Kim-Moon summit. (Since both sides have far too much to lose to risk a repetition of the disastrous 2007 summit, it is likely that the main points have already been settled.) In the run up to the June elections, confederation will be sold mainly on economic grounds, perhaps also with talk of reducing terms of military service, and with nightly candlelight demonstrations of a pacifist-nationalist nature, but none of that will do much good if people are worrying about a US troop pullout. There is thus a good chance of the North-South summit resulting in some utterly non-binding indication that Kim Jong Un has reconciled himself to a permanent US troop presence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Seems like good news. I’m cautiously optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:
"We won't shoot test missiles or detonate more test nukes" is not as exciting as some people think it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I would consider NKs signaling to let the US keep troops in the region, if true, to show the opposite regarding China; It would suggest that their relationship has deteriorated to a pretty severe degree. I find it extremely hard to believe Xi would ever be willing to let Americans keep troops there, so... Xi probably (and rightly) believes that the US is full of useless rhetoric and bluster at this point, in regards to North Korea, and doesn't have the stomach for a second go at the Korean War. And thus, he would have nothing to gain by idiotically pressing it as a point of contention. And then there's the counter logic, which is that if Xi is concerned about US forces using some kind of response to a North Korean event as a pretext to station closer to the Chinese border, then it only makes logical sense to draw North Korea in closer and maintain that nation-sized land boundary as it currently is. Finally, if Xi can get North Korea onto a reformative track and a peace settlement is in place between the Koreas, that throws the US off of its footing in the region. Because then it raises the question of how much South Korea still needs a US presence in the country, and it also puts it as a question between South Korea and the US to answer. But hey, I guess Xi is just an America-hating Chinese Commie Robot or something who can't exercise any kind of diplomatic discipline, foresight, or patience, right? Fojar38 posted:Or maybe the geopolitical status of the US hinges on far more things than the personality of the President at any given time, most of which are far more important and enduring. Which is also something that people seem to be having trouble comprehending. I didn't mention Trump at all, though? Like, way to embody your red text by missing the whole point and context. fishmech posted:The gently caress you talking about. Here's the scenario: nothing appears to be changing at all. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
You keep rambling on as if the reaffirmation of the previous status quo except North Korea remains under more sanctions is some sort of radical change. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
my guess is Kim had a come to jesus moment when he was in Beijing regarding what China would and wouldn’t put up with and the penalties for further testing. I hope Trump isn’t too Trump to gently caress up this absolute free throw and get a bunch of easy credit for doing basically nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 04:50
|
|
