Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How To Understand What's Happening In North Korea
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Apr 28, 2018, 2:30:49 PM4/28/18
to
How to Understand What’s Happening in North Korea
By Nicholas Kristof
April 27, 2018
http://tinyurl.com/ybk6lqql
North Korea doesn’t have enough food, it lacks Facebook and Beyoncé, and its diplomats have to ration their use of computers in the Foreign Ministry because of electricity shortages.
But North Korea excels at choreography and theater, and its officials are well educated, very savvy, and agile with a pirouette. So we have peace breaking out on the Korean Peninsula — and President Trump gets some credit for that.
As with any circus performance, it’s amazing to behold but not quite as billed.
As Kim Jong-un stepped into South Korea on Friday — the first North Korean leader to do so — let’s acknowledge that he has played a weak hand exceptionally well. Kim is now aiming to squirm out of sanctions, build up his economy and retain his nuclear arsenal, all while remaining a global focus of attention. It’s a remarkable performance.
“North Korea expert” is an oxymoron, but from someone who has been covering the country since the 1980s, here’s my take on why we should be deeply skeptical — and yet relieved, even a bit hopeful.
President Trump’s tightening of sanctions and his belligerent rhetoric genuinely did change the equation. All this was meant to intimidate Kim, but it mostly alarmed President Moon Jae-in of South Korea and galvanized him to undertake successful Olympic diplomacy that laid the groundwork for the North-South summit meeting.
Kim then parlayed that progress into meetings with both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, both of which reflected longtime North Korean goals. And on Friday Kim and Moon adopted a declaration promising “no more war,” “a new era of peace” and “complete denuclearization.”
Inspiring, but count me skeptical.
North and South Korean leaders have signed grand peace documents before, in 2000 and 2007, and neither lasted. In 2012, North Korea agreed not to test missiles and then weeks later fired one off but called it a “satellite” launch.
When North Korea talks about “complete denuclearization,” it typically means that the U.S. ends its alliance with South Korea, and then North Korea will no longer need nuclear weapons to defend itself. But the U.S. won’t give up the South. And North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1950s, and I don’t know any expert who thinks that it will genuinely hand over its arsenal.
On my last visit to North Korea, in September, a Foreign Ministry official told me that Libya had given up its nuclear program — only to have its regime toppled. Likewise, he noted, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq lacked a nuclear deterrent — so Saddam was ousted by America. North Korea would not make the same mistake, he insisted.
It’s even less likely that North Korea will give up its nukes now that it sees Trump poised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal.
Kim’s game plan seems to be to sign pledges for denuclearization, leaving details to be worked out in follow-up talks, knowing that the pledges won’t be fully implemented and that there will never be intrusive inspections. This may be disingenuous on the part of North Korea, but that’s not terrible: It provides a face-saving way for both North Korea and the U.S. to back away from the precipice of war.
Trump and Kim both badly want a meeting, so expect North Korea to release its three American detainees in the coming weeks and to make soothing statements. Trump and Kim will present themselves as historic peacemakers as they sign some kind of declaration calling for peace and denuclearization, with some kind of timetable; Trump’s aides will then say that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Barack Obama did.
I hope Trump will also raise human rights issues. A commission of inquiry suggested that North Korea has committed crimes against humanity “on a massive scale” in its labor camps, and we should push for access to these camps by humanitarian organizations.
“Over 100,000 people, a figure that includes countless innocent family members of so-called enemies of the state, are effectively consigned to die in North Korea’s political prisons,” Navi Pillay, a former U.N. high commissioner for human rights, told me. “The forced abortions, infanticide, persecution of Christians, torture and summary executions that regularly occur in those various facilities are well documented. President Trump can demand that the Red Cross and the international community be given access to North Korea’s prisons and labor camp systems.”
In the meantime, I’m guessing that the North will halt all nuclear and missile testing (hopefully, including short-range missiles), and will stop production of plutonium at its reactors in Yongbyon (North Korea may also claim to stop enriching uranium, but that’s more difficult to verify). In exchange, China and South Korea will quietly ease sanctions — and Kim will get what he has always wanted, the legitimacy of being treated as a world leader, as an equal, and as the ruler of a de facto nuclear state.
Both Kim and Trump benefit politically from that scenario, and for that matter so does the world: Hard-liners will fume that we’re being played and that the North is not verifiably giving up nuclear weapons — true — but it’s all preferable to war.
How does this end? The West’s plan is to drag things along until the North collapses. This may happen. The problem is that it was also the U.S. plan in 1994 in a previous nuclear deal. And I confess that I chose to be The New York Times’s bureau chief in Tokyo in the late 1990s partly so that I could cover what I thought might be the collapse soon of the North Korean regime. I learned then not to make predictions about the timing of the demise of the Kim dynasty.
In effect, the emerging framework is a backdoor route to a nuclear cap or to the “freeze for a freeze” solution that North Korea and China have previously recommended and that Trump has rejected. It may all fall apart. But it’s possible now to envision a path away from war, and for that even we skeptics should be grateful.
***
A pretty accurate picture.
It's too early to tell exactly how this will really play out...
.
By Nicholas Kristof
April 27, 2018
http://tinyurl.com/ybk6lqql
North Korea doesn’t have enough food, it lacks Facebook and Beyoncé, and its diplomats have to ration their use of computers in the Foreign Ministry because of electricity shortages.
But North Korea excels at choreography and theater, and its officials are well educated, very savvy, and agile with a pirouette. So we have peace breaking out on the Korean Peninsula — and President Trump gets some credit for that.
As with any circus performance, it’s amazing to behold but not quite as billed.
As Kim Jong-un stepped into South Korea on Friday — the first North Korean leader to do so — let’s acknowledge that he has played a weak hand exceptionally well. Kim is now aiming to squirm out of sanctions, build up his economy and retain his nuclear arsenal, all while remaining a global focus of attention. It’s a remarkable performance.
“North Korea expert” is an oxymoron, but from someone who has been covering the country since the 1980s, here’s my take on why we should be deeply skeptical — and yet relieved, even a bit hopeful.
President Trump’s tightening of sanctions and his belligerent rhetoric genuinely did change the equation. All this was meant to intimidate Kim, but it mostly alarmed President Moon Jae-in of South Korea and galvanized him to undertake successful Olympic diplomacy that laid the groundwork for the North-South summit meeting.
Kim then parlayed that progress into meetings with both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, both of which reflected longtime North Korean goals. And on Friday Kim and Moon adopted a declaration promising “no more war,” “a new era of peace” and “complete denuclearization.”
Inspiring, but count me skeptical.
North and South Korean leaders have signed grand peace documents before, in 2000 and 2007, and neither lasted. In 2012, North Korea agreed not to test missiles and then weeks later fired one off but called it a “satellite” launch.
When North Korea talks about “complete denuclearization,” it typically means that the U.S. ends its alliance with South Korea, and then North Korea will no longer need nuclear weapons to defend itself. But the U.S. won’t give up the South. And North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1950s, and I don’t know any expert who thinks that it will genuinely hand over its arsenal.
On my last visit to North Korea, in September, a Foreign Ministry official told me that Libya had given up its nuclear program — only to have its regime toppled. Likewise, he noted, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq lacked a nuclear deterrent — so Saddam was ousted by America. North Korea would not make the same mistake, he insisted.
It’s even less likely that North Korea will give up its nukes now that it sees Trump poised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal.
Kim’s game plan seems to be to sign pledges for denuclearization, leaving details to be worked out in follow-up talks, knowing that the pledges won’t be fully implemented and that there will never be intrusive inspections. This may be disingenuous on the part of North Korea, but that’s not terrible: It provides a face-saving way for both North Korea and the U.S. to back away from the precipice of war.
Trump and Kim both badly want a meeting, so expect North Korea to release its three American detainees in the coming weeks and to make soothing statements. Trump and Kim will present themselves as historic peacemakers as they sign some kind of declaration calling for peace and denuclearization, with some kind of timetable; Trump’s aides will then say that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Barack Obama did.
I hope Trump will also raise human rights issues. A commission of inquiry suggested that North Korea has committed crimes against humanity “on a massive scale” in its labor camps, and we should push for access to these camps by humanitarian organizations.
“Over 100,000 people, a figure that includes countless innocent family members of so-called enemies of the state, are effectively consigned to die in North Korea’s political prisons,” Navi Pillay, a former U.N. high commissioner for human rights, told me. “The forced abortions, infanticide, persecution of Christians, torture and summary executions that regularly occur in those various facilities are well documented. President Trump can demand that the Red Cross and the international community be given access to North Korea’s prisons and labor camp systems.”
In the meantime, I’m guessing that the North will halt all nuclear and missile testing (hopefully, including short-range missiles), and will stop production of plutonium at its reactors in Yongbyon (North Korea may also claim to stop enriching uranium, but that’s more difficult to verify). In exchange, China and South Korea will quietly ease sanctions — and Kim will get what he has always wanted, the legitimacy of being treated as a world leader, as an equal, and as the ruler of a de facto nuclear state.
Both Kim and Trump benefit politically from that scenario, and for that matter so does the world: Hard-liners will fume that we’re being played and that the North is not verifiably giving up nuclear weapons — true — but it’s all preferable to war.
How does this end? The West’s plan is to drag things along until the North collapses. This may happen. The problem is that it was also the U.S. plan in 1994 in a previous nuclear deal. And I confess that I chose to be The New York Times’s bureau chief in Tokyo in the late 1990s partly so that I could cover what I thought might be the collapse soon of the North Korean regime. I learned then not to make predictions about the timing of the demise of the Kim dynasty.
In effect, the emerging framework is a backdoor route to a nuclear cap or to the “freeze for a freeze” solution that North Korea and China have previously recommended and that Trump has rejected. It may all fall apart. But it’s possible now to envision a path away from war, and for that even we skeptics should be grateful.
***
A pretty accurate picture.
It's too early to tell exactly how this will really play out...
.
thang ornerythinchus
Apr 29, 2018, 2:16:03 AM4/29/18
to
a double Pulitzer Prize winner.
The first thing he has left out is the fact that the USA is reviled,
utterly, throughout DPRK. During the war, the US bombed into oblivion
something in the order of 20% or so of the civilian population. This
led to a lot of hatred, much more than North Vietnamese civilians have
for the US, which believe me, is still robust after all this time
(I've been there and seen the museums etc).
This is one major factor why the "imminent" collapse has never
happened and probably still won't regardless of privations. When
every single family has lost one or more ancestors due to the US, and
that hatred has festered and been cultivated in a closed-off petri
dish for the last half century+, and the US is seen as the primary
power in the west which has indoctrinated the South as well, then that
is a powerful factor militating against collapse. They will put up
with almost anything in that context.
Secondly, what is the provenance of the figures quoted by Navi Pillay?
This is a country almost impervious to spies because the people by and
large hate the US so much for what was done to them in the war. There
are NO spies in the DPRK, unlike for instance Russia and China which
are replete with western spies. So if the US can't obtain military
intelligence figures on the ground (as opposed to satellite and
nuclear radioactivity detection) then how have these figures relating
to political prisons been reliably obtained? Don't believe everything
you read even if it's spouted by a Pulitzer Prize winner*2. There is
not that much discontent in DPRK due to the solidarity of citizenry in
opposition to the US.
With regard to the statement that the West intends to drag this out
until collapse, I beg to differ. The west's plan (and who is the
"west" he refers to anyway?) is not to drag this out until collapse -
the US and the south and Japan all realise now that collapse is
anything but certain. China has most to fear from collapse due to (a)
refugees and (b) replacement of the DPRK by hostile powers sharing the
very long Chinese border - yet China is observing sanctions esp. coal
therefore, China doesn't really feel that collapse is on the cards.
China is just playing the UN good guy (or compliant guy) for the
moment while it builds up its arsenal for a later chest to chest with
the US in the Pacific.
The West will grab at straws to sort out the issue and the esteemed
Leader has just presented a whole bunch of straws to be grasped. Kim
will likely not give up his nuclear weapons but why should he? Yet,
he may for the following reason:
Mr Pulitzer Prize winner*2 draws a comparison with Iran (nuclear deal)
and the possible tearing up by Trump thereof. But DPRK is much
different to Iran - DPRK has really only to convince the South (ROK)
that unification or analogous is advantageous to both north and south
and the US, the West, will not be able to exert leverage ever again
over DPRK, nuclear arsenal or not. Once some sort of
bi-umvirate/bilateral leadership mechanism is sorted out, Kim and
Moon and their respective organisations and nations will be welded at
the hip and there is no way the US or the West will ever be able to
make any sort of war or even belligerent moves against the North,
because it won't exist - there will just be Korea, like pre-1950.
This article is superficial and doesn't consider reality. Kim and
Moon will do a deal and the country will be reunited and the US and
the West won't get a look in. The details will be sorted out later.
>
>.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Apr 29, 2018, 2:31:28 PM4/29/18
to
As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away
http://tinyurl.com/ybp8fs84
Excerpts:
While the two Korean leaders pledged to rid the heavily armed peninsula of nuclear weapons, they put no timeline on that process, nor did they set out a common definition of what a nuclear-free Korea would look like. Instead, they agreed to pursue a peace treaty this year that would formally end the Korean War after nearly seven decades of hostilities.
The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch.
To meet his own definition of success, Mr. Trump will have to persuade Mr. Kim to accept “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea — something that Mr. Kim has shown no willingness to accept in the past, and few believe he will accede to in the future.
Mr. Trump reiterated that he was prepared to cancel the meeting, or walk out in the middle of it, if his diplomatic efforts were not making any headway. But some of his aides say privately they worry that the president, with an eye on the history books and a flair for the theatrical, is determined to emerge with a victory, even if it falls short of his stated goals.
The price of failure would be high for Mr. Trump. The United States could face a split with its ally South Korea, which is deeply invested in ending its estrangement from the North. Tensions could flare with China, North Korea’s main trading partner, which only grudgingly signed on to the sanctions and would be likely to balk at keeping them in place if Mr. Kim is talking about peace.
Mr. Trump is also moving on other fronts that could undercut his negotiations with Mr. Kim. He appears more likely than ever to rip up the Iran nuclear deal as he faces his next deadline of May 12 to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Tehran.
Walking away from one nuclear disarmament deal while trying to strike another would be a trick, even for a self-proclaimed dealmaker like Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump is only one of three actors in this drama, and perhaps not the most crucial one. Mr. Moon, a progressive former human rights lawyer, ran for office on a platform of conciliation with the North and has moved aggressively to deliver on that promise. He, not Mr. Trump, has set the pace and terms of the negotiation with the North, though American officials say that Seoul is closely coordinating with Washington.
Mr. Kim, for his part, made a bold bet on diplomacy. His motives for seeking a rapprochement are open to debate. Skeptical analysts said the advancements in North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile program — as much as sanctions or threatened military strikes — made the timing right for an overture. Others say he is replaying the cycle of provocation and conciliation pioneered by his father and grandfather.
Whatever his motives, the 34-year-old dictator has proved to be a remarkably adroit player on the world stage. “If anyone gets credit, it’s Kim Jong-un,” said Daniel R. Russel, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs who is now at the Asia Society. “It’s his show.”
So far, Mr. Kim’s bet has paid off handsomely. Since beginning his overture a month before the Winter Olympics in South Korea, he has been awarded a meeting with President Xi Jinping of China, who had earlier treated him with thinly disguised contempt. He was welcomed by Mr. Moon with a South Korean honor guard. And he is on the verge of something once inconceivable: a meeting with the American president.
Though Mr. Kim made gestures of his own — a pledge not to test bombs or long-range missiles, and an end to the North’s longtime insistence that American troops withdraw from the peninsula — he has not made any tangible concessions on his nuclear weapons. The language in his joint statement with Mr. Moon about denuclearization was both vague and familiar to veterans of past negotiations with North Korea.
“He’s gotten all these meetings with world leaders without making any concessions,” said Jung H. Pak, a former C.I.A. analyst who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for East Asia Policy Studies. “So far, everything has been no-cost for Kim.”
Given the warmth of the Moon-Kim meeting, few analysts are predicting that Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Kim will be sour. The most likely situation is an encounter that produces more riveting imagery and results in a broad agreement to negotiate disarmament in return for an easing of North Korea’s economic isolation.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said the meeting location had been narrowed to two or three sites. Officials had hoped to have already locked down a place, but said the process was more complicated than expected. Singapore and Mongolia have emerged as prime candidates, though an official said a site in South Korea remained a possibility.
The challenge for Mr. Trump will be embarking on a protracted negotiation with Mr. Kim that, if the past is any guide, will quickly bog down in highly technical discussions about inspections of nuclear sites, the dismantling of installations and the removal of nuclear fuel.
Some question whether Mr. Trump’s hawkish new national security team — led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the national security adviser, John R. Bolton — will have the stomach for that. Others note that Mr. Trump may face pressure on the right if it looks as though North Korea is playing for time, as it did during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
With the North seeking to re-establish diplomatic and economic ties to the South, Mr. Trump will find it difficult to play the cards he used during his first year in office. Some analysts said Mr. Kim’s outreach to Mr. Moon amounted to a kind of insurance policy against Mr. Trump.
“It becomes awfully hard for Trump to return to the locked-and-loaded, ‘fire and fury’ phase of the relationship,” said Jeffrey A. Bader, a former Asia adviser to President Barack Obama.
Administration officials acknowledged the risk that Mr. Trump could find himself out of sync with Mr. Moon. They said their job was to remind the president of the proper sequence of negotiations with North Korea: tangible steps toward denuclearization, followed by an easing of sanctions, and then a peace treaty.
As always, though, the wild card is Mr. Trump himself.
“He sees this as a Nixon-in-China moment, and he will want to move quickly, where patience is the order of the day,” said Kurt M. Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs.
.
http://tinyurl.com/ybp8fs84
Excerpts:
While the two Korean leaders pledged to rid the heavily armed peninsula of nuclear weapons, they put no timeline on that process, nor did they set out a common definition of what a nuclear-free Korea would look like. Instead, they agreed to pursue a peace treaty this year that would formally end the Korean War after nearly seven decades of hostilities.
The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch.
To meet his own definition of success, Mr. Trump will have to persuade Mr. Kim to accept “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea — something that Mr. Kim has shown no willingness to accept in the past, and few believe he will accede to in the future.
Mr. Trump reiterated that he was prepared to cancel the meeting, or walk out in the middle of it, if his diplomatic efforts were not making any headway. But some of his aides say privately they worry that the president, with an eye on the history books and a flair for the theatrical, is determined to emerge with a victory, even if it falls short of his stated goals.
The price of failure would be high for Mr. Trump. The United States could face a split with its ally South Korea, which is deeply invested in ending its estrangement from the North. Tensions could flare with China, North Korea’s main trading partner, which only grudgingly signed on to the sanctions and would be likely to balk at keeping them in place if Mr. Kim is talking about peace.
Mr. Trump is also moving on other fronts that could undercut his negotiations with Mr. Kim. He appears more likely than ever to rip up the Iran nuclear deal as he faces his next deadline of May 12 to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Tehran.
Walking away from one nuclear disarmament deal while trying to strike another would be a trick, even for a self-proclaimed dealmaker like Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump is only one of three actors in this drama, and perhaps not the most crucial one. Mr. Moon, a progressive former human rights lawyer, ran for office on a platform of conciliation with the North and has moved aggressively to deliver on that promise. He, not Mr. Trump, has set the pace and terms of the negotiation with the North, though American officials say that Seoul is closely coordinating with Washington.
Mr. Kim, for his part, made a bold bet on diplomacy. His motives for seeking a rapprochement are open to debate. Skeptical analysts said the advancements in North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile program — as much as sanctions or threatened military strikes — made the timing right for an overture. Others say he is replaying the cycle of provocation and conciliation pioneered by his father and grandfather.
Whatever his motives, the 34-year-old dictator has proved to be a remarkably adroit player on the world stage. “If anyone gets credit, it’s Kim Jong-un,” said Daniel R. Russel, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs who is now at the Asia Society. “It’s his show.”
So far, Mr. Kim’s bet has paid off handsomely. Since beginning his overture a month before the Winter Olympics in South Korea, he has been awarded a meeting with President Xi Jinping of China, who had earlier treated him with thinly disguised contempt. He was welcomed by Mr. Moon with a South Korean honor guard. And he is on the verge of something once inconceivable: a meeting with the American president.
Though Mr. Kim made gestures of his own — a pledge not to test bombs or long-range missiles, and an end to the North’s longtime insistence that American troops withdraw from the peninsula — he has not made any tangible concessions on his nuclear weapons. The language in his joint statement with Mr. Moon about denuclearization was both vague and familiar to veterans of past negotiations with North Korea.
“He’s gotten all these meetings with world leaders without making any concessions,” said Jung H. Pak, a former C.I.A. analyst who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for East Asia Policy Studies. “So far, everything has been no-cost for Kim.”
Given the warmth of the Moon-Kim meeting, few analysts are predicting that Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Kim will be sour. The most likely situation is an encounter that produces more riveting imagery and results in a broad agreement to negotiate disarmament in return for an easing of North Korea’s economic isolation.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said the meeting location had been narrowed to two or three sites. Officials had hoped to have already locked down a place, but said the process was more complicated than expected. Singapore and Mongolia have emerged as prime candidates, though an official said a site in South Korea remained a possibility.
The challenge for Mr. Trump will be embarking on a protracted negotiation with Mr. Kim that, if the past is any guide, will quickly bog down in highly technical discussions about inspections of nuclear sites, the dismantling of installations and the removal of nuclear fuel.
Some question whether Mr. Trump’s hawkish new national security team — led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the national security adviser, John R. Bolton — will have the stomach for that. Others note that Mr. Trump may face pressure on the right if it looks as though North Korea is playing for time, as it did during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
With the North seeking to re-establish diplomatic and economic ties to the South, Mr. Trump will find it difficult to play the cards he used during his first year in office. Some analysts said Mr. Kim’s outreach to Mr. Moon amounted to a kind of insurance policy against Mr. Trump.
“It becomes awfully hard for Trump to return to the locked-and-loaded, ‘fire and fury’ phase of the relationship,” said Jeffrey A. Bader, a former Asia adviser to President Barack Obama.
Administration officials acknowledged the risk that Mr. Trump could find himself out of sync with Mr. Moon. They said their job was to remind the president of the proper sequence of negotiations with North Korea: tangible steps toward denuclearization, followed by an easing of sanctions, and then a peace treaty.
As always, though, the wild card is Mr. Trump himself.
“He sees this as a Nixon-in-China moment, and he will want to move quickly, where patience is the order of the day,” said Kurt M. Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs.
.
thang ornerythinchus
Apr 29, 2018, 10:43:54 PM4/29/18
to
*your* thoughts on this matter? Do you have any thoughts on it? Do
you care? Are you trolling?
I have the capacity to read observe understand and synthesize into
conclusions such as my response to your cut and paste original post
above. In fact, most people can if they practice a little self
discipline and have moderate intelligence. Putin in his interviews by
Stone published as transcripts last August put it well:
" FIRST INTERVIEW, Trip 1—Day 1—July 2, 2015,
ON PUTIN’S BACKGROUND
OS: Well, I’d like to go there tomorrow and the next day. I mean it’s
almost impossible to tell what’s going on in the world unless you look
below the surface.
VP: You know, it’s sufficient just to closely monitor what’s going on
in the world always and then you’ll understand the logic behind what
is going on. Why do ordinary people often lose touch with what is
going on? Why do they consider these things complicated? Why do they
think that something is concealed from their eyes? This is simply
because ordinary people live their lives. On an everyday basis they go
to work and earn money, and they are not following international
affairs. That’s why ordinary people are so easy to manipulate, to be
misled. **But if they were to follow what’s going on in the world on
an everyday basis, then despite the fact that some part of diplomacy
is always conducted behind closed doors, it’s still going to be easier
to understand what’s going on and you’ll be able to grasp the logic
behind world developments. And you can achieve it even without having
access to secret documents**."
I've inserted the special characters for emphasis.
Although I view Putin with distaste, I recognise a master strategist
when I see one. And he is one. I have the Interviews in Epub and
might just upload it for your use, but predominantly for Slider's use.
Chris will have no use for it at all, I almost envy his blithe
disregard for current affairs and events.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Apr 30, 2018, 11:42:24 AM4/30/18
to
"Skeptics warned that North Korea previously made similar pledges
of denuclearization on numerous occasions, with little or no
intention of abiding by them. Mr. Kim’s friendly gestures,
they said, could turn out to be nothing more than empty promises
aimed at lifting sanctions on his isolated country."
"Mr. Bolton, a longtime critic of past diplomacy with North Korea,
expressed skepticism on Sunday, recalling past moments that looked
hopeful. Those would include a commitment by Pyongyang in the 1990s
to give up its nuclear program and the destruction of a nuclear
power cooling tower in 2008 as part of a similar promise.
“We want to see real commitment,” he said on “Face the Nation”
on CBS. “We don’t want to see propaganda from North Korea.
We’ve seen words. We’ve seen words so far.”
Asked about North Korea’s insistence on a promise by the United
States not to invade, Mr. Bolton noted that was an old demand
that had been rolled out on other occasions. “We’ve heard this
before,” he said. “The North Korean propaganda playbook is an
infinitely rich resource.”
On Friday, Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon signed a joint declaration
recognizing “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula” and “complete
denuclearization” as a common goal of the two Koreas. But during
the summit events, some of which were broadcast live around
the world, Mr. Kim never publicly renounced his nuclear weapons.
Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
to threaten military action.
.
of denuclearization on numerous occasions, with little or no
intention of abiding by them. Mr. Kim’s friendly gestures,
they said, could turn out to be nothing more than empty promises
aimed at lifting sanctions on his isolated country."
"Mr. Bolton, a longtime critic of past diplomacy with North Korea,
expressed skepticism on Sunday, recalling past moments that looked
hopeful. Those would include a commitment by Pyongyang in the 1990s
to give up its nuclear program and the destruction of a nuclear
power cooling tower in 2008 as part of a similar promise.
“We want to see real commitment,” he said on “Face the Nation”
on CBS. “We don’t want to see propaganda from North Korea.
We’ve seen words. We’ve seen words so far.”
Asked about North Korea’s insistence on a promise by the United
States not to invade, Mr. Bolton noted that was an old demand
that had been rolled out on other occasions. “We’ve heard this
before,” he said. “The North Korean propaganda playbook is an
infinitely rich resource.”
On Friday, Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon signed a joint declaration
recognizing “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula” and “complete
denuclearization” as a common goal of the two Koreas. But during
the summit events, some of which were broadcast live around
the world, Mr. Kim never publicly renounced his nuclear weapons.
Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
to threaten military action.
.
slider
Apr 30, 2018, 2:19:33 PM4/30/18
to
> Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
> to threaten military action.
minimally!
(there's also been some chatter (unconfirmed) re russia maybe assisting
korea behind the scenes with how to proceed/deal with all this...)
thang ornerythinchus
Apr 30, 2018, 11:02:54 PM4/30/18
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:19:31 +0100, slider <sli...@anashram.com>
wrote:
Slider, slider, slider. Can't you see the fool is taking the piss?
He's trolling, cutting and pasting raw text. He has an inordinately
long memory for perceived slights, I guess I shouldn't have referred
to him as a "wizened old cunt" :)
Or perhaps I should have fed his appetite for self-congratulations on
conceiving such a brilliant progeny...
Or perhaps it's just that I thing Comrade Trump deserves the Nobel for
his efforts in achieving peace on the Korean peninsula. And he
doesn't.
Hey David Jerome, it's just fucking Usenet :)
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “universe,”
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a
kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our
personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole
of nature in its beauty.
- ALBERT EINSTEIN
wrote:
He's trolling, cutting and pasting raw text. He has an inordinately
long memory for perceived slights, I guess I shouldn't have referred
to him as a "wizened old cunt" :)
Or perhaps I should have fed his appetite for self-congratulations on
conceiving such a brilliant progeny...
Or perhaps it's just that I thing Comrade Trump deserves the Nobel for
his efforts in achieving peace on the Korean peninsula. And he
doesn't.
Hey David Jerome, it's just fucking Usenet :)
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “universe,”
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a
kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our
personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole
of nature in its beauty.
- ALBERT EINSTEIN
slider
May 1, 2018, 12:21:32 AM5/1/18
to
truth/correctness about it and that's all i care about heh :)]
Jeremy H. Denisovan
May 1, 2018, 3:56:12 PM5/1/18
to
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:02:54 PM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
> Hey David Jerome, it's just fucking Usenet :)
Yeah, that was about as "informative" as anything else you've ever
> Hey David Jerome, it's just fucking Usenet :)
posted to Usenet, i.e. not at all. :)
.
thang ornerythinchus
May 6, 2018, 7:07:59 PM5/6/18
to
>> Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
>> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
>> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
>> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
>
>> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
>> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
>> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
>> to threaten military action.
>
>### - this sounds about right really...
You wouldn't know Slider because you're too fundamentally biased in
>> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
>> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
>> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
>
>> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
>> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
>> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
>> to threaten military action.
>
>### - this sounds about right really...
your views. You don't know the meaning of objectivity nor do you
strive to correct your bias. You truly are an old dog who cannot be
taught new tricks. If you could only (a) see the extent to which you
are biased in your worldview; and (b) make some effort mentally to
correct that bias, then (c) you would become objective and
dispassionate. But this will never be the case I'm afraid :(
>
>minimally!
>
>(there's also been some chatter (unconfirmed) re russia maybe assisting
>korea behind the scenes with how to proceed/deal with all this...)
radar system again?
thang ornerythinchus
May 6, 2018, 7:47:54 PM5/6/18
to
work for it, don't expect me to toil on your account :)
Hey, at least you pruned this response down to a few lines. Unlike
your usual cut and paste Tl;dr articles. Look on the bright side.
slider
May 7, 2018, 5:04:08 AM5/7/18
to
On Mon, 07 May 2018 00:07:55 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thango...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:19:31 +0100, slider <sli...@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
>>> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
>>> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
>>> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
>>
>>> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
>>> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
>>> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
>>> to threaten military action.
>>
>> ### - this sounds about right really...
>
> You wouldn't know Slider because you're too fundamentally biased in
> your views. You don't know the meaning of objectivity nor do you
> strive to correct your bias. You truly are an old dog who cannot be
> taught new tricks. If you could only (a) see the extent to which you
> are biased in your worldview; and (b) make some effort mentally to
> correct that bias, then (c) you would become objective and
> dispassionate. But this will never be the case I'm afraid :(
### - it's totally in-keeping with my own pov on the matter based, as it
<thango...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:19:31 +0100, slider <sli...@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
>>> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
>>> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
>>> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
>>
>>> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
>>> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
>>> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
>>> to threaten military action.
>>
>> ### - this sounds about right really...
>
> You wouldn't know Slider because you're too fundamentally biased in
> your views. You don't know the meaning of objectivity nor do you
> strive to correct your bias. You truly are an old dog who cannot be
> taught new tricks. If you could only (a) see the extent to which you
> are biased in your worldview; and (b) make some effort mentally to
> correct that bias, then (c) you would become objective and
> dispassionate. But this will never be the case I'm afraid :(
is, on historical data/history of this fat-fuck's family record & line, so
perforce i endorse it/agree, minimally...
>> minimally!
>>
>> (there's also been some chatter (unconfirmed) re russia maybe assisting
>> korea behind the scenes with how to proceed/deal with all this...)
>
> What do you mean some "chatter"? You been listening on your stealth
> radar system again?
that may or may not be correct, but which some people are suggesting
is/might nevertheless be true... immediate local reactions, for example...
or even conspiracy theorists jumping on opportunities to sensationalise...
why? because even stopped clocks are unerringly correct at least twice per
day, so they can't ALL be discounted outta hand as sometimes they get it
completely right! ;)
toodle-roo ya wallaby you (ozzie for: see ya later alligator
hehehehehe...) :)
thang ornerythinchus
May 13, 2018, 11:55:46 PM5/13/18
to
On Mon, 07 May 2018 10:04:01 +0100, slider <sli...@anashram.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2018 00:07:55 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
><thango...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:19:31 +0100, slider <sli...@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
>>>> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
>>>> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
>>>> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
>>>
>>>> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
>>>> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
>>>> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
>>>> to threaten military action.
>>>
>>> ### - this sounds about right really...
>>
>> You wouldn't know Slider because you're too fundamentally biased in
>> your views. You don't know the meaning of objectivity nor do you
>> strive to correct your bias. You truly are an old dog who cannot be
>> taught new tricks. If you could only (a) see the extent to which you
>> are biased in your worldview; and (b) make some effort mentally to
>> correct that bias, then (c) you would become objective and
>> dispassionate. But this will never be the case I'm afraid :(
>
>### - it's totally in-keeping with my own pov on the matter based, as it
>is, on historical data/history of this fat-fuck's family record & line, so
>perforce i endorse it/agree, minimally...
>
And as I write this, he is in the process of denuclearising DPRK and
Pompeo is promising an injection of Yankee money sufficient to rebuild
DPRK into a rich, self supporting prosperous nation.
Not much to argue about there. I hope it all goes through ok and
peace returns to the region, enough people have died.
>
>
>>> minimally!
>>>
>>> (there's also been some chatter (unconfirmed) re russia maybe assisting
>>> korea behind the scenes with how to proceed/deal with all this...)
>>
>> What do you mean some "chatter"? You been listening on your stealth
>> radar system again?
>
>### - 'chatter' merely means/implies unconfirmed reports (talk/gossip...)
>that may or may not be correct, but which some people are suggesting
>is/might nevertheless be true... immediate local reactions, for example...
>or even conspiracy theorists jumping on opportunities to sensationalise...
>
>why? because even stopped clocks are unerringly correct at least twice per
>day, so they can't ALL be discounted outta hand as sometimes they get it
>completely right! ;)
>
>toodle-roo ya wallaby you (ozzie for: see ya later alligator
>hehehehehe...) :)
Same to you.
"Nihilism, in the sense in which it is used here, means that there
exist no objective morals, no absolute good nor evil. This idea goes
far and transcends modern cultural relativism, to depths and darknesses
only visited hitherto by a brave few adventurers. Without the characteristic
of courage you will not understand, you will not want to understand."
Neo-Nihilism
The Philosophy of Power
Peter Sjöstedt-H
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2018 00:07:55 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
><thango...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:19:31 +0100, slider <sli...@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean
>>>> officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that
>>>> denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required
>>>> multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust.
>>>
>>>> Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his
>>>> nuclear weapons and is merely trying to soften his image, escape
>>>> sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue
>>>> to threaten military action.
>>>
>>> ### - this sounds about right really...
>>
>> You wouldn't know Slider because you're too fundamentally biased in
>> your views. You don't know the meaning of objectivity nor do you
>> strive to correct your bias. You truly are an old dog who cannot be
>> taught new tricks. If you could only (a) see the extent to which you
>> are biased in your worldview; and (b) make some effort mentally to
>> correct that bias, then (c) you would become objective and
>> dispassionate. But this will never be the case I'm afraid :(
>
>### - it's totally in-keeping with my own pov on the matter based, as it
>is, on historical data/history of this fat-fuck's family record & line, so
>perforce i endorse it/agree, minimally...
>
Pompeo is promising an injection of Yankee money sufficient to rebuild
DPRK into a rich, self supporting prosperous nation.
Not much to argue about there. I hope it all goes through ok and
peace returns to the region, enough people have died.
>
>
>>> minimally!
>>>
>>> (there's also been some chatter (unconfirmed) re russia maybe assisting
>>> korea behind the scenes with how to proceed/deal with all this...)
>>
>> What do you mean some "chatter"? You been listening on your stealth
>> radar system again?
>
>### - 'chatter' merely means/implies unconfirmed reports (talk/gossip...)
>that may or may not be correct, but which some people are suggesting
>is/might nevertheless be true... immediate local reactions, for example...
>or even conspiracy theorists jumping on opportunities to sensationalise...
>
>why? because even stopped clocks are unerringly correct at least twice per
>day, so they can't ALL be discounted outta hand as sometimes they get it
>completely right! ;)
>
>toodle-roo ya wallaby you (ozzie for: see ya later alligator
>hehehehehe...) :)
"Nihilism, in the sense in which it is used here, means that there
exist no objective morals, no absolute good nor evil. This idea goes
far and transcends modern cultural relativism, to depths and darknesses
only visited hitherto by a brave few adventurers. Without the characteristic
of courage you will not understand, you will not want to understand."
Neo-Nihilism
The Philosophy of Power
Peter Sjöstedt-H
0 new messages