[North Korea] The Dear Loser comes into his own.

[hepcat]

Bolton sure does think things through, doesn't he?

[Chaz]

Nobody could have predicted that North Korea would balk at the idea of giving up nukes. Of course, now Trump's already conceded on the major point that Kim wanted, which was to schedule talks. If the Trump admin had done the normal thing, and had a bunch of low-key talks and negotiations first, with the culmination being a summit with the President, then this would've come up and been either worked out in advance and killed the process quietly, or could have been used as a bargaining chip, like "you give up your nukes, and then we'll give you the joint summit you want."

Instead, we gave them what they wanted up front, Trump made a big deal out of it, and that gave Kim all the power in the negotiations. Boy, Mr. Art of the Deal sure seems real bad at negotiations.

[Paingod]

We should cut him some slack. He's never done politics, let alone diplomacy. I'm sure he's just out of his depth in a kiddie pool.

[Isgrimnur]

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

[Max Peck]

Bolton sure does think things through, doesn't he?

I wouldn't assume that Bolton himself is surprised or displeased by this reaction. Everything I've read suggests that he'd prefer a straight-up military approach to the problem, so a break-down in diplomacy that humiliates and enrages Trump plays into Bolton's hands.

[pr0ner]

Nobody could have predicted that North Korea would balk at the idea of giving up nukes.

The rest of your post makes sense but this first line is a real head scratcher. Plenty of people would have predicted this. Especially after Trump backed out of the Iran deal.

[Chaz]

My sarcasm font must be on the fritz again.

[hepcat]

Bolton sure does think things through, doesn't he?

I wouldn't assume that Bolton himself is surprised or displeased by this reaction. Everything I've read suggests that he'd prefer a straight-up military approach to the problem, so a break-down in diplomacy that humiliates and enrages Trump plays into Bolton's hands.

Sorry, should have added more context to my post. I was referring to Bolton's recent interview that stated the U.S. was looking at Libya as a model for North Korea. He also brought up Iraq in the discussion. Considering that both regimes ended with their leader dead, it was bound to piss off Kim.

[pr0ner]

My sarcasm font must be on the fritz again.

Heh. The rest of your post was so spot on that the sarcasm was easily missed!

[Max Peck]

Bolton sure does think things through, doesn't he?

I wouldn't assume that Bolton himself is surprised or displeased by this reaction. Everything I've read suggests that he'd prefer a straight-up military approach to the problem, so a break-down in diplomacy that humiliates and enrages Trump plays into Bolton's hands.

Sorry, should have added more context to my post. I was referring to Bolton's recent interview that stated the U.S. was looking at Libya as a model for North Korea. He also brought up Iraq in the discussion. Considering that both regimes ended with their leader dead, it was bound to piss off Kim.

I believe that it is entirely plausible that Bolton would choose to undercut the diplomatic initiative because he believes that the military option is the better solution to the problem. By all accounts he is not a stupid man, so this is one case where I'm inclined to see intent rather than incompetence.

[hepcat]

It was incompetent no matter what he believes.

[YellowKing]

So is this the part where Trump lets NK keep their nuclear weapons in exchange for building a Trump Hotel & Casino in downtown Pyongyang?

[Isgrimnur]

And we get the Pueblo back as the Trumpalo.

[Max Peck]

It was incompetent no matter what he believes.

Perhaps, depending on the context in which we define his competence, but I don't believe that it was unintentional or demonstrates lack of forethought. Invoking the Libyan model of denuclearization as an American policy goal is exactly what you would do if you wanted to force Kim to walk away from the talks. Done deliberately, I'd characterize it as ruthlessly hawkish and misguided rather than incompetent.

[Max Peck]

So is this the part where Trump lets NK keep their nuclear weapons in exchange for building a Trump Hotel & Casino in downtown Pyongyang?

He doesn't even need to build it. Just slap Trump's name on the Ryugyong hotel and sign a lucrative management contract with TrumpOrg.

[hepcat]

It was incompetent no matter what he believes.

but I don't believe that it was unintentional or demonstrates lack of forethought.

It was incompetent no matter what he believes.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

So is this the part where Trump lets NK keep their nuclear weapons in exchange for building a Trump Hotel & Casino in downtown Pyongyang?

Or, almost certainly, this is the part where Trump insists that full NK denuclearization was never the intended goal.

[Max Peck]

It was incompetent no matter what he believes.

but I don't believe that it was unintentional or demonstrates lack of forethought.

It was incompetent no matter what he believes.

If you say so. Your logic is unassailable.

[hepcat]

Thank you. It took some time, but you got there.

[Victoria Raverna]

So is this the part where Trump lets NK keep their nuclear weapons in exchange for building a Trump Hotel & Casino in downtown Pyongyang?

Or, almost certainly, this is the part where Trump insists that full NK denuclearization was never the intended goal.

Not going to insist on full NK denuclearization because "Too many jobs in North Korea lost".

[raydude]

Trump was right. I'm getting tired of so much "winning".

[Holman]

Trump threat to Kim Jung-un. Make a deal or end up like Gaddafi.
"If you look at that model with Gaddafi, that was a total decimation. We went in to beat him. Now that model would take place if we don't make a deal, most likely."

So much packed in here:

1) Trump is obviously mistaking the "Libya model" of Libya's rapid denuclearization (mentioned by Bolton and rejected by NK) with the end of Gaddafi's regime, an entirely different event.

2) Trump appears to believe that we invaded Libya and overthrew Gaddafi.

On the other hand, Trump also promised that we would support Kim's regime and keep him in power if he made a deal with us.

The president also vowed that Kim would "get protections that will be very strong," a sharp departure from the fiery rhetoric Trump used just months ago against the isolated despot and a promise that would appear to go far beyond what previous administrations have offered the communist dictatorship. Previous administrations have offered economic incentives and pledges not to take hostile action against the North Koreans, but have not said they would affirmatively protect the North.

This ends with Trump declaring war on Seoul, doesn't it?

[Kraken]

This ends with Trump declaring war on Seoul, doesn't it?

My hunch is that it ends with Trump pulling US troops out of SK, so same thing, ultimately. He will throw SK under the bus if he thinks he wins a prize for it.

[Holman]

More from the article I linked above. Trump really believes we invaded Libya.

"The Libyan model isn't a model that we have at all," Trump told reporters during a photo session with the visiting secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jens Stoltenberg. "We decimated that country."

(Everyone else talking about "the Libyan model" is referring to the deal by which Libya gave up its nukes and not at all to the chaos that ended with Gaddafi's ouster and execution. Even bringing up the latter, obviously, gives Kim every reason to reject our proposals.)

[hepcat]

His staff is lucky he hasn’t referred to it as the Liberia model.

[Holman]

I really can't get over this. Gaddafi died within the present decade.

How is the President of the United States so absurdly uninformed about something he has presumably been focused on for weeks?

[Max Peck]

I really can't get over this. Gaddafi died within the present decade.

How is the President of the United States so absurdly uninformed about something he has presumably been focused on for weeks?

Either that's a rhetorical question or you haven't been paying attention for the last couple of years.

[hepcat]

And now Traitor Trump is offering “protections” to Kim if he’ll just come back to the table and stop jeopardizing his chances at a Nobel.

[pr0ner]

[Captain Caveman]

JFC, the narcissism it burns.

It's also more evidence that Trump is so fixated on being historic that he can't back out or leave without some "deal". It sure seems like he'd rather agree to anything and sell it as a "win" than risk losing face.

[pr0ner]

The South Koreans are blaming the shifting issues in the North Korea talks on one man: John Bolton.

I mean, no one could have seen that coming....

[Holman]

Short thread from Robert Kelly, one of the go-to experts on NK and SK:

Thoughts on Moon’s meeting with Trump tomorrow: 1) It increasingly looks like the Moon administration overstated North Korea’s willingness to deal. Moon will probably get an earful over that.

tl;dr:

SK flattered Trump into agreeing to a summit because Trump's "fire and fury" rhetoric terrified them into believing a war was imminent. The very dovish SK president saw his approvals skyrocket (from the 40s to the 80s) in reaction to Trump's saber-rattling, and he began pushing for detente, which NK understands as a windfall propaganda coup. Yes, the Nobel talk from Seoul was intended to manipulate Trump.

No Korea expert thinks NK has any intention of giving up its nukes, which it sees as having already given it legitimacy on the world stage.

[GungHo]

Short thread from Robert Kelly, one of the go-to experts on NK and SK:

Thoughts on Moon’s meeting with Trump tomorrow: 1) It increasingly looks like the Moon administration overstated North Korea’s willingness to deal. Moon will probably get an earful over that.

tl;dr:

SK flattered Trump into agreeing to a summit because Trump's "fire and fury" rhetoric terrified them into believing a war was imminent. The very dovish SK president saw his approvals skyrocket (from the 40s to the 80s) in reaction to Trump's saber-rattling, and he began pushing for detente, which NK understands as a windfall propaganda coup. Yes, the Nobel talk from Seoul was intended to manipulate Trump.

No Korea expert thinks NK has any intention of giving up its nukes, which it sees as having already given it legitimacy on the world stage.

Do we even need 'NK experts' to tell us that? Not being a smartass towards you just saying in general, that basically everyone (excepting of course our own 'Dear Leader') knew this. It's like we went into this thing telling NK we didn't want to be pregnant and NK said we already are...there's no middle ground there.
I think the smart play here is the long (looong) game in which we give NK international standing and even some easing of sanctions for what will undoubtedly be cosmetic reductions to their overall nuclear stance. I.e they dismantle testing stations that were you know, already destroyed by earthquakes. That kind of thing. But what we're ultimately hoping for is the NK people can get up off the mat, start to develop a society that is trapped in the 1880s and join the modern world. Once the majority of their people have that, and they see what that means for them and their families you hope they start to trend more like China. I realize China is not a beacon of human rights but they're shit tons better these days than when they were under Mao's thumb. And we have formalized and normalized relations with them.
I think we keep every last troop we have in SK, IN South Korea for the foreseeable future. After all Kim only respects power.

But short of this policy which I think might have a 5% chance of making the cut our other choices are outright war or a constant level of high tension on the verge of war.
As y'all said before 'winning'. It's like we elected Charlie Steen president when he was at his peak of drug abuse : the real world does not look at all like what trump thinks it does.

[Isgrimnur]

War is Boring

Mount Mantap didn’t collapse. Yes, seismologists registered a 6.3-magnitude earthquake under the mountain on September 3, the result of North Korea’s sixth and most recent underground atomic test. And yes, it’s possible that the quake collapsed the subterranean cavity that the buried bomb blast produced.

But it’s unlikely that atomic tests turned Mount Mantap into “fragile fragments,” as the South China Morning Post claimed. The Chinese newspaper drew its conclusions from a study that is scheduled to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, a scientific journal.

An earlier survey of potential damage at Mount Mantap, also published in Geophysical Research Letters, reportedly indicated there had been a collapse at the site, but didn’t say whether the overall facility remained usable. According to The Wall Street Journal, the researchers haven’t explained why.

“Nuclear explosions make cavities,” Lewis explained in a tweet. “One of those cavities collapsed, which seismologists detected. Science is cool. But a cavity collapse does not mean the tunnel complex collapsed, let alone the whole mountain.”

Even if a cavity or part of the adjacent facility was destroyed, there’s no reason North Korean leader Kim Jong Un can’t simply build a new site. “Kim can dig new tunnels quickly to replace the collapsed sites if he chooses to do so,” Bruce Blair, a Princeton University nuclear expert, told me. “He could even test above ground if deemed warranted. There is really nothing technical standing in the way.”

Indeed, there’s photographic evidence that North Korea was digging fresh tunnels in Mount Mantap as recently as April, Lewis claimed.

[abr]

Even if a cavity or part of the adjacent facility was destroyed, there’s no reason North Korean leader Kim Jong Un can’t simply build a new site. “Kim can dig new tunnels quickly to replace the collapsed sites if he chooses to do so,” Bruce Blair, a Princeton University nuclear expert, told me. “He could even test above ground if deemed warranted. There is really nothing technical standing in the way.”

Nothing technical. But China might have a word or two with the supreme leader if he starts testing above ground.

[Isgrimnur]

One would hope.

[Unagi]

I've not heard this talked about....

The translators during the summit will be in a position to soften, harden, and in what ever sense needed - adjust their Leader's words in a manner to nudge things.


With these two Huge egos present, how will this translation degrade. Each will want to present to their leader (presumably) the most generous and kind interpretations of their word, but to also want to faithfully transmit their 'alpha-dog' stance, etc.

I mean these interpreters actually become the two people at the sumit, right?

I would almost think this thought would disturb the people invsted in the summit to some degree (right?!) , so how do they address this. I would almost want 3 inerpeters where each is forced to give me a slightly different nuance and understanding on what the other person just said. It's hard to believe that people would really put all of their faith into what just "one person says that person said".

Maybe each side gives an interpreter - and they here both give 'their' interpretations of the words spoken by the leader....

So the counter-leader can hear the translations in a 'generous' way and also in a more 'patriotic' way??


(real time, I'm talking - not post analysis)

[Chaz]

Wouldn't the US interpreter translate Kim, and the NK interpreter translate Trump? I'd assume you'd want your person to tell you what the other leader said, rather than relying on their interpreter to translate accurately.

[Unagi]

Right, and I'm sorta picturing both of them (the interpreters) nudging things given the personalities they are dealing with...

I guess I'm saying I'd (being one of the two) want to hear both, and then maybe even just a 3rd one that was randomly chosen - or just Google or something.

[Skinypupy]

I'm feeling proactively sorry for the poor translator who has to try and decipher Trump-speak.

ook, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Yes, that's an actual quote