Objectively, it is good that Trump agreed to a summit with Kim to discuss an agreement on North Korea’s denuclearization on condition Kim just temporarily halt nuclear activities until such an agreement is reached.
That’s all we’ve got right now, but it is much more than we had two days ago.
Until the Winter Olympics we were veritably on the brink of war with North Korea, two or three aircraft carriers floating off the coasts nearby, long range nuclear bombers making recurring practice runs from Guam and Japan, the most advanced fighter jets rehearsing maneuvers with regional allies, ever-increasing sanctions with the US Coast Guard even deploying to intercept freighters illicitly transferring cargo for North Korea on the high seas, while Kim and Trump hurled insults at each other. Hawaii was conducting drills for a nuclear attack, everyone expected a nuclear conflagration imminently.
So Trump’s agreement to summit with Kim is not, objectively, a bad thing.
If Trump doesn’t play his cards wisely, and if his decision to accept Kim’s summit offer was as hasty as the details out in public now suggest, he could risk unnecessarily elevating Kim’s global status, setting up a diplomatic breakdown, and rushing other (possibly military) action to make up for it.
https://apnews.com/6b3c8972e0ce4fb6...rong?-Pitfalls-pose-risks-in-Trump,-Kim-talks
Yes, even if they don’t reach an agreement, Kim gains because he will have accomplished recognition of North Korea as a nuclear power just by standing beside Trump. Standing next to Trump doesn’t confer nuclear power status, but doing so at a summit to discuss denuclearization would.
What happens if Trump can't announce Kim has agreed to immediately allow verified dismantling of his nuclear weapons? I'm sure Trump expects to end the summit with such an announcement, an agreement for the verifiable denuclearization of North Korea would be an unquestionable achievement. The details need to be dealt with, this isn't something that can be done quickly, the IAEA has to send inspectors, presumably there'd be a timeline with Kim verifiably destroying the most powerful missiles first, then production facilities and other related installations.
The table was set for the announcement Tuesday when South Korea announced the North had stated there was "no reason" to hold on to its nuclear weapons "if military threats towards the North are cleared and the security of its regime is guaranteed."
In the past North Korea has indicated that security guarantees mean the departure of US forces from the Korean peninsula and the end of a mutual defense treaty with the South.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-kim-hold-historic-meeting-013411522.html
One would expect Kim would demand the US reciprocate with a timeline for US military withdrawal from South Korea, the details here are also complex. A denuclearized North Korea would still be a military threat to South Korea, what military defenses for South Korea should be reasonably allowed? US military presence there functions as a trigger to US intervention if the North attacks, to relinquish that presence would require South Korea retain the capacity to credibly defend itself alone.
