Vipin Narang

Indeed. His performance in the actual meeting—and John Bolton’s policy preferences—remain in question.

I agree with Cheryl & David. There is no grand strategy, only impulse. A leader whose fears of rejection are easily manipulated by a natl. sec. advisor wanting to kill the summit. We should stop struggling to impose order on Trump’s chaos.

Just because the tactic worked doesn’t mean there’s a grand strategy. But I think it’s important to resist criticizing every move. Things are back on track for now and maybe the tactic had a role to play in that. Doesn’t mean this will end honky dory though obviously

But is having a summit with an unprepared, thin-skinned, nuke-waving American president with warmongers behind him a good thing?

You are giving him too much credit. North Korea vituperates. Trump postures. How do we know that both don't see through the other?

Maybe you’re right. But when I go back and read the letter it definitely seemed tactical. He left the door wide open and only 24h later they were back in business. I want to avoid criticizing everything

I thought it looked tactical when it came out - a mixture of accusations and pleading. Like everything Trump, it was ambiguous enough that he could claim credit no matter what happened.

North Korea is making its own judgments - witness the meeting with South Korea. We have no idea what Trump will do in a summit.

At least the fact that the summit is proceeding is evidence that Trump is not necessarily committed to a military solution.

It’s not praise, exactly. Just tentative... not optimism, but less pessimism.