TO EVERYONE ARGUING TRUMP SHOULDN'T TALK TO NORTH KOREA: If getting Kim to the table isn't the point of sanctions, and war's a bad idea, what's the strategy? No one capitulates. Ever. But sometimes in talks they give something to get something. If there's no good deal, walk away.
-
Show this thread
-
Evidently, I'm on a bit of an island here, with most saying Trump meeting with Kim is a bad idea. I think talking is a good idea. Here's why: 2/x
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Some conservative commentators I respect (
@RadioFreeTom@NoahCRothman et al) argue Trump meeting Kim is a bad idea because it rewards North Korea for bad behavior, gives Kim the legitimacy he craves, and the US didn't get enough preconditions to justify meeting. 3/x5 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
However... 1) North Korea agreed to suspend missile and nuclear testing while talks go on. Considering they conducted one hydrogen-boosted nuclear weapon test and 16 ballistic missile tests in 2017--all of which US condemned--a testing freeze is a concession in advance. 4/x
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
2) Yes, Kim wants the prestige of meeting directly with a US president but what does he actually gain? Some propaganda videos for domestic consumption? Sure, but his power's already absolute. International acceptance? Hardly. Not unless there's a breakthrough deal. 5/x
4 replies 2 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
The other big criticism, mostly from the left, is that Trump's bound to screw it up. Maybe Kim'll flatter him and he'll give away the store. Can't totally rule that out. But Trump's POTUS. We can't put foreign policy on hold for 3 years. Not with NK's capabilities advancing. 6/x
4 replies 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NGrossman81
All valid points, but your very last two sentences are what I mostly agree with. My hesitation on this is indeed in the form of rewarding bad behavior after people have said for years “we can’t let rogue states see nukes as way to legitimacy.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JasonBakerJB @NGrossman81
But we do otherwise seem to be at an impasse. The sanctions seem to be working...but working to the point of nK collapsing is quite possibly more dangerous than a standing regime with weapons.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
They don't seem to be on the verge of collapse. Despite sanctions, the regime has remained in power and advanced its weapons capabilities. Believing talks will lead to disarmament is naive. But they could lead to some stabilization. And if they fail, it's just status quo.
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
Currently on the verge? No. Continued years of the current pressure though could finally become a different story. My concern is that failed talks in the current environment would not lead to status quo of the past, as much as I truly want to believe that.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.