07-02-2019, 02:40 AM
I wonder if your point (1) is accurate. I think Kim was sincere about the outlines of his agreement with Trump and S. Korea. Let's recall that the agreement had two parts: there was opening of trade, which mutually benefited North and South Korea, and there was military deescalation, which included N. Korea giving up its nuclear weapons and the U.S. withdrawing its forces from South Korea.
I think if all of this could be done at once, Kim would be willing to do it. It's just that Kim wants the economic trade first, because it's easier for him: it gives him a win to help him with internal support for the military trade, plus it stabilizes the situation so the temptation to invade once the US withdraws from S. Korea won't be too much to resist.
The US wants the military trade first, since it's concerned that the military trade may never happen if the economic trade goes first. The situation is complicated by the fact that S. Korea wants the economic trade first. Kim overestimated the influence of S. Korea on the US, and thought that if he and S. Korea agreed to do the economic stuff first, the US would go along, which it would have under previous Presidents. I'm not sure he's going to do the military trade first. But again, if everyone else did all of their parts at the same time, he'd give up the nuclear weapons, so it's not that he won't give them up no matter what other people do.
Incidentally, I bought your books on Iran and China and have skimmed them.
I'm still puzzled by your obvious concern about all the nuclear weapons China has that are primarily targeted at the US, but your lack of concern for the many more nuclear weapons Russia has that are primarily targeted at the US. I'd be interested in your analysis of Russia, as I believe you think their crisis occurred in the 1990s.
I'd also be interested in your analysis of why Germany entered WWII. As I recall, you believe that Europe had had a recent crisis war in the form of WWI, so how did European WWII become a crisis war? Did US involvement somehow turn it into a crisis war? Otherwise Chamberlain's peace would have happened, or what?
I think if all of this could be done at once, Kim would be willing to do it. It's just that Kim wants the economic trade first, because it's easier for him: it gives him a win to help him with internal support for the military trade, plus it stabilizes the situation so the temptation to invade once the US withdraws from S. Korea won't be too much to resist.
The US wants the military trade first, since it's concerned that the military trade may never happen if the economic trade goes first. The situation is complicated by the fact that S. Korea wants the economic trade first. Kim overestimated the influence of S. Korea on the US, and thought that if he and S. Korea agreed to do the economic stuff first, the US would go along, which it would have under previous Presidents. I'm not sure he's going to do the military trade first. But again, if everyone else did all of their parts at the same time, he'd give up the nuclear weapons, so it's not that he won't give them up no matter what other people do.
Incidentally, I bought your books on Iran and China and have skimmed them.
I'm still puzzled by your obvious concern about all the nuclear weapons China has that are primarily targeted at the US, but your lack of concern for the many more nuclear weapons Russia has that are primarily targeted at the US. I'd be interested in your analysis of Russia, as I believe you think their crisis occurred in the 1990s.
I'd also be interested in your analysis of why Germany entered WWII. As I recall, you believe that Europe had had a recent crisis war in the form of WWI, so how did European WWII become a crisis war? Did US involvement somehow turn it into a crisis war? Otherwise Chamberlain's peace would have happened, or what?
