North Korea claims nuclear talks with U.S. have broken down

  
Via:  perrie-halpern  •  2 weeks ago  •  37 comments

North Korea claims nuclear talks with U.S. have broken down
"The breakup of the negotiation without any outcome is due to the fact that the U.S. would not give up their old viewpoint and attitude," North Korean diplomat Kim Myong Gil said.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By   Phil McCausland, Abigail Williams and Carolin Sri-Narayana


North Korea claims that its negotiations with the United States over its nuclear weapons program broke down on Saturday, although the U.S. sees it differently.

This latest turn of events comes after North Korea announced earlier this week that it would   resume its talks with the United States on its nuclear program , months after   negotiations between the two countries collapsed   when Pyongyang said American demands were unreasonable.

But North Korea's chief negotiator said after hours of talks Saturday in Stockholm that the discussions "have not fulfilled our expectation and finally broke up."

"The breakup of the negotiation without any outcome is due to the fact that the U.S. would not give up their old viewpoint and attitude," North Korean diplomat Kim Myong Gil said.

"The U.S. raised expectations by offering suggestions like flexible approaches, new methods and creative solutions, but they have disappointed us greatly and dampened our enthusiasm for negotiations by bringing nothing to the negotiation table," he added.

The State Department rejected this characterization of the talks, saying in a statement by spokesperson Morgan Ortagus that North Korea's comments "do not reflect the content or the spirit of today's 8 1/2 hour discussion."

"The U.S. brought creative ideas and had good discussions" with its North Korean counterparts, Ortagus said.

He added that the U.S. has already accepted an invitation from Sweden to return to Stockholm in two weeks to continue the negotiations.

"The United States and the DPRK will not overcome a legacy of 70 years of war and hostility on the Korean Peninsula through the course of a single Saturday," Ortagus said in the statement, using the country's full title of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "These are weighty issues, and they require a strong commitment by both countries. The United States has that commitment."

The two sides had not met since February at the working level, and North Korea had indicated it would not consider further negotiations until the U.S. dropped a demand for unilateral disarmament.

Tensions appeared to have eased a bit after Gil   a pplauded President Donald Trump's decision   to fire his then-national security security adviser, John Bolton.

Bolton said in his first public remarks after his contentious departure from the White House   that Trump's approach to North Korea would not yield results. The country's leader, Kim Jong Un, never planned to give up his nuclear weapons in these negotiations, he said.

“Under current circumstances he will never give up the nuclear weapons voluntarily,” Bolton said during an appearance at a forum on U.S.-Korea policy

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago

Is anyone really shocked? If so, why?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago

Shocked?  No.  In fact, my unshock regarding this matter might very well reach monumental proportions.  

Every time Trump speaks of his beautiful bromance with KJU, I know it's time to start working on the fallout shelter again.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 weeks ago

Hey North Korea! Truth is indeed freaking painful isn't it?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2    2 weeks ago

Always is.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2    2 weeks ago
Hey North Korea! Truth is indeed freaking painful isn't it?

Well, perhaps trump's negotiations with N Korea have failed-- but let's not forget the tremendous success he's had in negotiations with China! 

(/sarc)

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Krishna @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

So are you saying NK gets a pass so failed negotiations can all be blamed on Trump? 

(/sarc also)

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Ed, I know that most here see me as partisan, let's drop that for a moment. 

There is a reason other presidents have failed to/not tried to negotiate with NK. One reason and one reason only. NK will never, EVER give up their nukes. It's the only card they have to play, but it's a big one. I despise John Bolton, but, I agree with him, NK will never give up their nukes. 

Is there a solution to the "NK problem"? Not really. If we attack them, they will destroy Seoul before we can do anything to stop them, so that wont work. There is no workable solution. 

Trump wanted a big score, a big win, something he could brag about.... It didn't happen, three times. He should just let it go. Let it die in the wings and pretend it never happened. I'll give trump points for making the effort, but after try #3? He should have let it go. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

You know I am just as partisan in my own way, but I agree with you 100% on all the above.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

i agree with you both

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.7  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
So are you saying NK gets a pass so failed negotiations can all be blamed on Trump? 

I blame North Korea for the failed negotiations.

Butt, you must admit that Trump's naivety was exposed with all of the "we fell in love" bullshit.

Or, maybe all Trump really wanted was those ridiculous photo ops with Kim Jong-un.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Setting aside everything that's wrong with North Korea for a second, it's hard to imagine any country completely giving up its defenses - nuclear or otherwise - without having the capability taken from them by force. Their stubbornness on that point might the thing about them that is most understandable.

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.1  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago

Yep, that and this has been their MO for many years now. Saying basically "you have to give us something to show you are sincere in working towards an equitable outcome" and then after they have received their danegold lamenting the fact that they just could not reach an agreement. I understand their stubbornness and I'm glad that Trump has not giving them anything of real value and has maintained the current sanctions while pushing forward. Will anything positive come out of this? Time will tell.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.1.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Snuffy @2.1    2 weeks ago

Trump gave him legitimacy.  This is the first time that a US president has acknowledged the legitimacy of the regime in NK in my lifetime.  He's treated a brutal dictator better than our own intelligence community, both of the last two GOP presidential nominees, and more than half of all Americans.  That may not seem like a lot to you but it's huge for Lil Kim.

Now I ask you.  What  did WE get?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Trump gave him legitimacy.

Did the rest of the world not recognize him as NK's leader, however despicable he may be?

What exactly do you think Kim got?

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Gee,  Trump met with him face to face in an effort of actually getting something done. How terrible was he to do that,  OMFG recognizing him on the world stage.  I mean, just what is he other than NK's leader... 

To parrot Tex, just what do you think Kim got out of meeting with Trump face to face?  Money?  Food?  A lessening of sanctions? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
What exactly do you think Kim got?

Recognition on the world stage, regardless of the demonstrable human rights violations wrought by his regime. Once again breaking the decades old understanding that some regimes should be consistently called out for such abuses and not courted for self-serving (Nobel Peace Prize?) self aggrandizement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Recognition on the world stage, regardless of the demonstrable human rights violations wrought by his regime. Once again breaking the decades old understanding that some regimes should be consistently called out for such abuses and not courted for self-serving (Nobel Peace Prize?) self aggrandizement.

Did other countries not recognize Kim as the leader of NK?

And, gee, so many people always say that the rest of the world laughs at Trump and doesn't take him seriously, so that argument falls a little flat, too.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.1.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

So...  What did we get Tex?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

No, no, no....

Your memory is short...Clinton kowtowed and bowed to the little bastard more than any president has ever done. Trump is trying to rein him in. Kimmy knows that all kinds of ordnance is targeting his living quarters. Missiles will rain down on NK if the fool "great leader" goes to far

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Recognition on the world stage,

He already had that thanks to Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

Trumps the only one who has attempted to have him come to terms, and that's somehow wrong?

And what was Trump supposed to get...an eternal treaty of peace?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
Recognition on the world stage, He already had that thanks to Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

Recognition as the inherited head of a despotic regime not entitled to entry on the international stage of diplomacy. A policy older than Kim himself, but unilaterally dismissed by one man, not as a function of a change in foreign policy, but as a function of his own personal agenda.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.10  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
No, no, no.... Your memory is short...Clinton kowtowed and bowed to the little bastard more than any president has ever done.

Ummm. no. He has only been the leader since 2011. That was way after Clinton.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

What exactly do you think Kim got?

Press coverage on the world stage. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.12  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
What exactly do you think Kim got?

Trump cancelled the annual joint military exercises with South Korea.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
Trump cancelled the annual joint military exercises with South Korea.

Which did exactly what for NK?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
So...  What did we get Tex?

Nothing.

Which is why I wasn't stupid enough to claim that we did.

That is not what we were talking about, either.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

It was terrible to the progressive liberal left solely because Trump did it and not one of their own. If it had been, you'ld have seen them hailed as a hero and a nomination for the Nobel Prize already. But hey, Barak Onama cheapened the prize by doing absolutely squat and getting awarded it.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

I am not surprised at all.  He is a tyrant.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4  FLYNAVY1    2 weeks ago

Now what are we going to do about it?  Well...........

I kind of like the "Out of sight, out of mind" approach.  NK operates a number of diesel-electric submarines, many of which are just as libel to sink on their own.  If we were to just give them a "little nudge....?"  The damn things are designed to sink aren't they?  Well........?  Just a thought. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4    2 weeks ago

Kind of like your thought... so long as it can't be traced back to us. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    2 weeks ago

Yep.... Put them on the bottom. 

SEAL mission with some form of Limpet Mine to increase water flow into the NK sub, a submarine located Mk60 captor mine programmed for one of their submarine types, or if nothing else, a Mk48ADCAP from one of our attack subs that just happens to be in the neighborhood.  In the latter case, we can always claim that "they shot first!"  Of course, their subs need to be in international waters.

Yes, this means that some people will be killed, but what other message do we send them?  Cruise missiles can start a chain reaction that can't be pulled back from.

If the rumors are true, another thought is a SEAL incursion to the drydock where the NKs are possibly building their first nuke powered sub.  Destroy both the sub and the drydock.  Dangerous, but this is what we pay SEALs for.   

 
 
 
Ender
5  Ender    2 weeks ago

Did anyone actually think the so called talks would go anywhere....

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1  Krishna  replied to  Ender @5    2 weeks ago
Did anyone actually think the so called talks would go anywhere.

Yes-- many of Trump's "base" believed him.

 
 
 
Kavika
6  Kavika     2 weeks ago

 I think that a beautiful letter from Trump and tripping the light fantastic should get the talks back on track.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

Who do you all trust less, Trump or Kim? 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    2 weeks ago

I don't trust either one of them butt I think it's hilarious that they're "in love".

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

dave-2693993
Heartland American
loki12
Paula Bartholomew
Dignitatem Societatis


101 visitors