North Korea and South Korea

[VixenToast]

Poor kiddo. I feel for his Mom. Not Dad. Dad blamed Obama.

[apple1]

41 minutes ago, VixenToast said:

Poor kiddo. I feel for his Mom. Not Dad. Dad blamed Obama.

I was going to just not respond to this post at all. Then I decided that I needed to say this.

I strongly disagree, and this post demonstrates a part of what is wrong in my country. WHY can we not have any empathy for those we disagree, even disagree STRONGLY, with? No matter how wrong we think "they" are? His dad is still a grieving Dad -- no matter how strongly I disagree with the father's blame (or credit) placing. I still see him as a grieving father who lost his son. If the direction of the blame placing had been in the opposite direction, how would we feel?

And the actual blame for this goes to the North Koreans and Kim Jong Un and his regime.

I needed to say this.

[Childless]

This is unfortunate.  He's not the first and probably won't be the last kid who died due to his own dumb actions.  I really wish kids would wise up.  Whether death comes from tearing down a propaganda poster in the DPRK or binge drinking at frat party on a U.S. college campus, I'm tired of seeing families torn apart as a result of stupidity.  Come on kids.  Turn your brains on!

[nausicaa]

A few thoughts on this situation:

My understanding is that the "tore down a poster" story is generally believed to be fabricated and he actually did no such thing. This have been known for several months. And it's not as if the DPRK is known for its adherence to the truth...

And I'm not sure what his being in a fraternity has to do with absolutely anything in this story?  It's been repeated several times as if it's intensely relevant.

And just to provide a different viewpoint on this, when I worked overseas I worked with ESL teachers who traveled the world. Many had taught in China and several had traveled to North Korea. It was a common "weird weekend" thing to do. I think they were crazy but they were adventurous and curious type people. And it was surprisingly common, among both younger and older teachers.

I agree that we should hesitate to be giving our money to such an evil regime, but at the same time, I traveled to Syria under Assad and Turkey under Erdogan. Plenty of tourists regularly travel to China, Egypt, Russia, and Iran. Sadly there are lots of less than stellar governments out there, but I'm not sure that should stop people who want to see the world.

[ShepherdontheRock]

6 hours ago, nausicaa said:

A few thoughts on this situation:

My understanding is that the "tore down a poster" story is generally believed to be fabricated and he actually did no such thing. This have been known for several months. And it's not as if the DPRK is known for its adherence to the truth...

And I'm not sure what his being in a fraternity has to do with absolutely anything in this story?  It's been repeated several times as if it's intensely relevant.

And just to provide a different viewpoint on this, when I worked overseas I worked with ESL teachers who traveled the world. Many had taught in China and several had traveled to North Korea. It was a common "weird weekend" thing to do. I think they were crazy but they were adventurous and curious type people. And it was surprisingly common, among both younger and older teachers.

I agree that we should hesitate to be giving our money to such an evil regime, but at the same time, I traveled to Syria under Assad and Turkey under Erdogan. Plenty of tourists regularly travel to China, Egypt, Russia, and Iran. Sadly there are lots of less than stellar governments out there, but I'm not sure that should stop people who want to see the world.

nausicaa, I think the reason people are bringing up the "frat boy" angle has less to do with Otto himself, and more to do with the double standard that Otto is viewed as a tragic hero/victim by the same people that view black male victims of police brutality in the United States, such as Philando Castile and Michael Brown, as thugs who got what they deserve. 

Which brings up a point, I actually got very pissed off hearing that some asshole commentator on Fox News was saying we should nuke the DPRK over this. Like, he does realize that this will incite...oh, I don't know, THE OBLITERATION OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA? Jesus Christ almighty. Like it's sad and fucked up that Otto died, but let's not take it out on both Koreas and probably also Japan. 

Several things about the DPRK's story from the very beginning don't add up. However, I don't necessarily believe Otto was a perfectly innocent little angel either; the DPRK doesn't make a habit of just picking up tourists on completely made up charges and holding them hostage. If I had to guess, I imagine Otto gave them an opportunity to use him as a hostage so they could maybe get something out of the US, and that the DPRK actually never intended for him to go into a coma, and they fucked up on that end.

Most tourists in North Korea are in fact actually Chinese. I imagine they have less to lose since China is basically North Korea's only real friend at this point. 

And I don't think it's exactly comparable, contributing to China, Turkey, Russia's economies to North Korea's. Yes, the first three countries  are awful dictatorships, but the people in them at least have access to the outside world, and the governments are "less bad" for lack of a better term. Also, their governments are not taking any income they can get and using it develop nuclear weapons to prop themselves up and throw tantrums to get what they want. I honestly believe the only way we can save the people of the DPRK in the end is to cut off their resources. 

@apple1 I think you can empathize with Dad's feelings of grief and anger and still think that his comments RE Obama were inappropriate and wrong. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by ShepherdontheRock

[VixenToast]

8 hours ago, apple1 said:

I was going to just not respond to this post at all. Then I decided that I needed to say this.

I strongly disagree, and this post demonstrates a part of what is wrong in my country. WHY can we not have any empathy for those we disagree, even disagree STRONGLY, with? No matter how wrong we think "they" are? His dad is still a grieving Dad -- no matter how strongly I disagree with the father's blame (or credit) placing. I still see him as a grieving father who lost his son. If the direction of the blame placing had been in the opposite direction, how would we feel?

And the actual blame for this goes to the North Koreans and Kim Jong Un and his regime.

I needed to say this.

I think you miss my point. How the hell am I placing blame on the Dad? I feel great sympathy for his mother. Not really so much for his Dad because he is placing blame on Obama, not NK. I'm not saying it's his Dad's fault, or that his Dad isn't grieving, nor that he doesn't deserve to grieve nor make a public statement. I simply don't feel for him like I do for this kids mom, since he played the blame game and made it all partisan, kinda left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not, like, violently hating on his Dad, or saying he is wrong and is going to hell for not "being" who I think he should be. I'm not what's wrong with this country, thank you very much. Intolerance and the patriarchy are.

[nausicaa]

@ShepherdontheRock I didn't realize this story had become grist in the mill of the conservative media. My Trump supporting circle (i.e., relatives I can't get away from) haven't really picked up this story and I'd only heard about it from articles in the Post and a couple fairly neutral mentions on FB.

And yeah, that's bullshit if the same people picking apart Philando Castile are excusing Otto.

(I also wonder if he did anything, since as I mentioned several people I know went in and out of DPRK with no problems--other than the guards wanting some money. Then again, maybe the officials thought he came from a connected family? It's also a paranoid unstable dictatorship, so who knows if logic even really applies. I just hope this doesn't become a trend to extract larger ransoms from families back in the U.S.)

[ShepherdontheRock]

I agree with @VixenToast that him blaming Obama for it left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Which brings up another point, there are about 3-4 Americans still detained in the DPRK. All of whom are of Korean descent. Are they getting this kind of media attention? Are presidents talking about their detention being a disgrace? Are their families basking in the attention and sympathy of well wishers, then blaming Obama?

I'm just...ugh about this on so many levels.

[VelociRapture]

My condolences are with this young man's entire family and his loved ones. Personally, I don't agree with his father's sentiments regarding President Obama and I find his not so subtle praise of Trump ridiculous - but I also know enough about grief to know that people aren't always rational while mourning and, many times, they look for someone to blame (whether right or wrong) - especially in extremely stressful situations, such as Mr. Warmbier found himself in. Others are, of course, free to disagree with me. I just can't blame a grieving parent. I just can't.

I can, however, fully blame Trump for politicizing Otto's death further. It's appalling that a sitting President would react in such a way. Just when I think he can't actually reach a new low...

I hope two things come from Otto's death. The first is that I hope this reminds people just how dangerous the current regime in North Korea is. I enjoyed "The Interview" greatly and I laugh at the jokes made at Kim Jong Un's expense. But we can't allow humor to cloud the fact that this is an extremely volatile and unpredictable person. 

Secondly, I hope that people realize that what happened to Otto was preventable. I absolutely do not blame this young man for what happened to him, but Otto ultimately chose to enter the country. People born in North Korea had no choice in where they were born and many of them don't have the option to flee to safety. If nothing else, I hope it causes the average westerner to find some sympathy in their heart for the average North Korean, who is likely just doing what they need to in order to survive.

[GreyhoundFan]

"We participated in talks with North Korean representatives. This is what we learned."

Spoiler

Not even the fate of American student Otto Warmbier, who died this week after returning to the United States following his detainment in North Korea, will dissuade advocates of “engagement” with Pyongyang. They argue that, however repugnant the regime, diplomacy is the only way to stop North Korea’s rapidly advancing nuclear and missile programs. But our recent experience suggests that trying to talk to supreme leader Kim Jong Un is a waste of time.

This month, we were part of a group of delegates from the United States, Japan, China and South Korea who met in Sweden with representatives of North Korea to explore possible grounds for resuming the six-party talks that collapsed in 2009. After many hours with the North Korean delegation at these “1.5 track” talks, we left more pessimistic than when we arrived.

North Korean officials made unambiguously clear that Pyongyang will not be deterred from augmenting its nuclear arsenal or test-launching an intercontinental ballistic missile that could eventually threaten the U.S. homeland. There were no signals of flexibility or willingness to negotiate on these programs.

Throughout, the North Korean message was that denuclearization is off the table. Pyongyang’s representatives declared: “The most perfect weapons system will never become the exclusive property of the United States.”

We tried repeatedly to ascertain whether any combination of economic and diplomatic benefits or security reassurances could induce Pyongyang to comply with its previously negotiated commitments and with U.N. resolutions. The answer was an emphatic, unwavering no. Citing the fates of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi, the North Koreans repeatedly said that their nuclear program is the ultimate life preserver for the regime.

Our North Korean interlocutors presented a stark choice: “First accept us as a nuclear state, then we are prepared to talk about a peace treaty or fight. We are ready for either.” The North Koreans weren’t saying that they would initiate hostilities but that they would fight if provoked. A peace treaty ending the Korean War and legitimizing the North Korean state is a long- standing goal for Pyongyang, which sees it as a catalyst for the removal of all U.S. forces from the peninsula.

Strikingly different from similar meetings in the past was the self-confidence, even cockiness, of the North Koreans, clearly a result of the recent successes of their nuclear and missile programs. The North Koreans also made clear that their nuclear program is a response to the general “U.S. hostile policy.” As such, nothing Seoul could offer would alter Pyongyang’s commitment to its nuclear arsenal. The North Koreans won’t even deign to negotiate with the South Koreans, whom they described repeatedly as “puppets” of the United States. Thus, the new South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, is in for a major disappointment if he tries to resurrect the “sunshine policy” of unconditional engagement pursued by previous progressive presidents from 1998 to 2008.

President Trump has placed his hopes on Chinese promises to more fully implement U.N. sanctions. But as even he now seems to acknowledge, this hasn’t happened. He tweeted on Tuesday: “While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi [Jinping] & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!”

Although Trump has criticized President Barack Obama’s “strategic patience” policy as weak and ineffectual, he has yet to distinguish his North Korea policy from his predecessor’s. Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” is anything but, and he continues to pull his punches against North Korean and Chinese violators of U.S. law. The Trump administration has also sent conflicting signals about whether it would negotiate with North Korea or potentially conduct a military attack to prevent the regime from mastering an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Initiating a preemptive strike would be a bad idea against a state that already has nuclear weapons, as well as 10,000 artillery tubes aimed at Seoul. In our talks, the North Korean officials emphasized that they did not struggle to acquire nuclear weapons only to perish without using them. The implied threat was clear: If the United States were to use military force against North Korea, Pyongyang would retaliate, potentially leading to hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties.

Instead of trying to preempt the North Korean nuclear weapons program, the Trump administration would be better advised to ramp up sanctions — including secondary sanctions, despite predictable Chinese protests. This would impose a penalty on North Korea, without risking a war — and could conceivably hasten the day the Kim regime finally collapses. Bolstering sanctions might not be exciting, but it would be a more pragmatic step than yet another attempt at negotiations.

Yeah, I can't imagine the TT will be level-headed or measured. He will throw a tantrum and blow up the world.

[GreyhoundFan]

"South Korea reports North Korea missile test"

Spoiler

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's military says North Korea has launched another ballistic missile.

The launch is part of a string of test-firings in recent months as the North works to build a nuclear-tipped missile that could reach the United States.

The South's Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement that Tuesday's launch was made from North Korea's North Phyongan province. The joint chief's statement says the launch was immediately reported to South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

It wasn't immediately clear if this was a routine firing of a short-range missile or an attempt to perfect North Korea's longer range missiles.

Japanese officials subsequently said the ballistic missile fired from North Korea's western coast is believed to have landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters the missile was fired around 9:40 a.m. Tuesday and flew for 40 minutes before landing in the Sea of Japan within waters where Japan claims economic rights.

He said no damage to aircraft or ships has been reported. Japanese media said the coast guard had cautioned ships about potential falling objects.

I am so worried that the TT will throw a tantrum and provoke NK into a war. KJU certainly is spoiling for a fight.

[candygirl200413]

He did tweet:

Also I just read this twitter thread from Lauren Rosenberger who worked apart of the secretary of state during Obama's term and it's just a tad terrifying.

Scroll after the first  part of responses to get to the rest of the thread. Basically Kim Jun is crazy enough to retaliate at us hard cause of Trump's tweets.

[GreyhoundFan]

Scary stuff: "Experts: North Korea’s missile was a ‘real ICBM’ — and a grave milestone"

Spoiler

The North Korean missile that soared high above the Sea of Japan early Monday was hailed by state-run television as a “shining success.” But to U.S. officials, it was a most unwelcome surprise: A weapon with intercontinental range, delivered years before most Western experts believed such a feat possible.

Hours after the apparently successful test, intelligence agencies continued to run calculations to determine precisely how the missile, dubbed the Hwasong 14, performed in its maiden flight. But the consensus among missiles experts was that North Korea had achieved a long-sought milestone, demonstrating a capability of striking targets thousands of miles from its coast.

Initial Pentagon assessments said North Korea had tested a “land-based, intermediate-range” missile that landed in the Sea of Japan just under 600 linear miles from its launch point Panghyon Airfield, near the Chinese border. But government and independent analyses showed the missile traveling in a steep arc that topped out at more than 1,740 vertical miles above the Earth’s surface.

If flown in a more typical trajectory, the missile would have easily traveled 4,000 miles, potentially putting all of Alaska within its range, according to former government officials and independent analysts. A missile that exceeds a range of 3,400 miles is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM.

“This is a big deal: It’s an ICBM, not a ‘kind of’ ICBM,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia nonproliferation at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “And there’s no reason to think that this is going to be the maximum range.”

David Wright, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, calculated in a published analysis that the Hwasong 14’s demonstrated capability exceeded 4,100 linear miles, based on preliminary estimates released on Monday.

“That range would not be enough to reach the Lower 48 states or the large islands of Hawaii, but would allow it to reach all of Alaska,” Wright said.

North Korea’s apparent accomplishment puts it well ahead of schedule in its years-long quest to develop a true ICBM. The Hwasong 14 tested on Monday could not have reached the U.S. mainland, analysts say, and there’s no evidence to date that North Korea is capable of building a miniaturized nuclear warhead to fit on one of its longer-range missiles. But there’s now little reason to doubt that both are within North Korea’s grasp, weapons experts say.

“In the past five years, we have seen significant, and much more rapid-than-expected development of their ballistic missiles capability,” said Victor Cha, a former director of Asian affairs for the George W. Bush administration’s National Security Council. “Their capabilities have exceeded our expectations on a consistent basis.”

While U.S. intelligence officials have sought, with some success, to disrupt North Korea’s progress, Pyongyang has achieved breakthroughs in multiple areas, including the development of solid-fuel rocket engines and mobile-launch capabilities, including rockets that can be fired from submarines. Early analysis suggests that the Hwasong 14 uses a new kind of indigenously built ballistic-missile engine, one that North Korea unveiled with fanfare on March 18. Nearly all the country’s ballistic missiles up until now used engines based on modifications of older, Soviet-era technology.

“It’s not a copy of a crappy Soviet engine, and it’s not a pair of Soviet engines kludged together — it’s the real thing,” Lewis said. “When they first unveiled the engine on March 18 they said that the ‘world would soon see what this means.’ I think we’re now seeing them take that basic engine design and execute it for an ICBM.”

In announcing the test in a special TV broadcast early Monday, North Korean officials proclaimed that the country had achieved an ICBM capability that would safeguard the reclusive communist government from attacks by the United States and other adversaries. According to U.S. analysts, leader Kim Jong Un has long calculated that nuclear-armed ICBMs are the best deterrence against threats to his survival, as any perceived aggression against him could trigger a retaliatory strike targeting U.S. cities.

“As the dignified nuclear power who possesses the strongest intercontinental ballistic rocket which is capable of hitting any part of the world along with the nuclear weapons, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will fundamentally terminate the U.S. nuclear war threats and blackmail and credibly protect the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the region,” a government spokeswoman said in a bulletin read on state-run television.

The spokeswoman added that the missile’s trajectory was deliberately set “at the highest angle” to avoid harming neighboring countries.

That claim rang true to U.S. analysts, who agreed that the high arc was likely intended to avoid possibly hitting Japanese territory. Moreover, the rocket’s flight path also would help North Korea secure another objective: secrecy. By sending the spent engine splashing into the deep waters of the Sea of Japan, Pyongyang ensured that it would be hard, if not impossible, for U.S. and Japanese divers to find and retrieve the parts.

 

[GrumpyGran]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Scary stuff: "Experts: North Korea’s missile was a ‘real ICBM’ — and a grave milestone"

  Reveal hidden contents

The North Korean missile that soared high above the Sea of Japan early Monday was hailed by state-run television as a “shining success.” But to U.S. officials, it was a most unwelcome surprise: A weapon with intercontinental range, delivered years before most Western experts believed such a feat possible.

Hours after the apparently successful test, intelligence agencies continued to run calculations to determine precisely how the missile, dubbed the Hwasong 14, performed in its maiden flight. But the consensus among missiles experts was that North Korea had achieved a long-sought milestone, demonstrating a capability of striking targets thousands of miles from its coast.

Initial Pentagon assessments said North Korea had tested a “land-based, intermediate-range” missile that landed in the Sea of Japan just under 600 linear miles from its launch point Panghyon Airfield, near the Chinese border. But government and independent analyses showed the missile traveling in a steep arc that topped out at more than 1,740 vertical miles above the Earth’s surface.

If flown in a more typical trajectory, the missile would have easily traveled 4,000 miles, potentially putting all of Alaska within its range, according to former government officials and independent analysts. A missile that exceeds a range of 3,400 miles is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM.

“This is a big deal: It’s an ICBM, not a ‘kind of’ ICBM,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia nonproliferation at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “And there’s no reason to think that this is going to be the maximum range.”

David Wright, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, calculated in a published analysis that the Hwasong 14’s demonstrated capability exceeded 4,100 linear miles, based on preliminary estimates released on Monday.

“That range would not be enough to reach the Lower 48 states or the large islands of Hawaii, but would allow it to reach all of Alaska,” Wright said.

North Korea’s apparent accomplishment puts it well ahead of schedule in its years-long quest to develop a true ICBM. The Hwasong 14 tested on Monday could not have reached the U.S. mainland, analysts say, and there’s no evidence to date that North Korea is capable of building a miniaturized nuclear warhead to fit on one of its longer-range missiles. But there’s now little reason to doubt that both are within North Korea’s grasp, weapons experts say.

“In the past five years, we have seen significant, and much more rapid-than-expected development of their ballistic missiles capability,” said Victor Cha, a former director of Asian affairs for the George W. Bush administration’s National Security Council. “Their capabilities have exceeded our expectations on a consistent basis.”

While U.S. intelligence officials have sought, with some success, to disrupt North Korea’s progress, Pyongyang has achieved breakthroughs in multiple areas, including the development of solid-fuel rocket engines and mobile-launch capabilities, including rockets that can be fired from submarines. Early analysis suggests that the Hwasong 14 uses a new kind of indigenously built ballistic-missile engine, one that North Korea unveiled with fanfare on March 18. Nearly all the country’s ballistic missiles up until now used engines based on modifications of older, Soviet-era technology.

“It’s not a copy of a crappy Soviet engine, and it’s not a pair of Soviet engines kludged together — it’s the real thing,” Lewis said. “When they first unveiled the engine on March 18 they said that the ‘world would soon see what this means.’ I think we’re now seeing them take that basic engine design and execute it for an ICBM.”

In announcing the test in a special TV broadcast early Monday, North Korean officials proclaimed that the country had achieved an ICBM capability that would safeguard the reclusive communist government from attacks by the United States and other adversaries. According to U.S. analysts, leader Kim Jong Un has long calculated that nuclear-armed ICBMs are the best deterrence against threats to his survival, as any perceived aggression against him could trigger a retaliatory strike targeting U.S. cities.

“As the dignified nuclear power who possesses the strongest intercontinental ballistic rocket which is capable of hitting any part of the world along with the nuclear weapons, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will fundamentally terminate the U.S. nuclear war threats and blackmail and credibly protect the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the region,” a government spokeswoman said in a bulletin read on state-run television.

The spokeswoman added that the missile’s trajectory was deliberately set “at the highest angle” to avoid harming neighboring countries.

That claim rang true to U.S. analysts, who agreed that the high arc was likely intended to avoid possibly hitting Japanese territory. Moreover, the rocket’s flight path also would help North Korea secure another objective: secrecy. By sending the spent engine splashing into the deep waters of the Sea of Japan, Pyongyang ensured that it would be hard, if not impossible, for U.S. and Japanese divers to find and retrieve the parts.

 

We need a real president right now. 

[bashfulpixie]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Scary stuff: "Experts: North Korea’s missile was a ‘real ICBM’ — and a grave milestone"

 

That's so horrifying.  And we have a dumb fuck toddler goading the psycho who controls it.  Awesome.

[fraurosena]

On 4-7-2017 at 6:46 AM, candygirl200413 said:

He did tweet:

 

From that second tweet you get the impression that he's relinquishing America's top dog position to China. 
This is most certainly NOT America First... 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

From that second tweet you get the impression that he's relinquishing America's top dog position to China. 
This is most certainly NOT America First... 

Personally I'd trust Xi over Trump any day to deal with Un. I never thought I'd say it. Remember when Xi had to explain him that things were more complicated than he thought? Sad!

[Penny]

Trump never wanted to make America First. Trump wanted to make Trump first. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"As U.S. and South Korea conduct military exercises, North Korea’s leader taunts Trump over ICBM "

Spoiler

BEIJING — Tensions over North Korea’s July 4 missile test mounted Wednesday, with the U.S. and South Korean forces conducting military exercises and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appearing to personally taunt the president of the United States.

The latest launch was a display of the North’s longest-reaching weapon yet — an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range that experts say covers Alaska. It now sharply boosts pressure on President Trump and his allies to carve out a strategy on North Korea amid deep international divisions over how to respond to an increasingly defiant regime in Pyongyang.

In a stark warning, top U.S. and South Korean commanders said the North risked tipping the peninsula toward war.

Before his inauguration, Trump said North Korea’s plan to develop an ICBM capable of hitting the United States “won’t happen” and has since made tough talk on the issue a signature.

Still, Trump’s main strategy to rein in North Korea had counted on help from China, which is the North’s main financial lifeline. On Wednesday, Trump further called out China for failing to tighten the economic noose.

“Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us — but we had to give it a try,” Trump tweeted.

Trump did not note the source of the statistic, but Chinese data released in April showed China’s trade with the North grew 37.4 percent during the first three months of the year compared with the same period in 2016. China said the trade grew even as it complied with U.N. sanctions and stopped buying North Korean coal.

Now with Trump’s China outreach apparently on the rocks, there were few clear signs on how to seek international agreement on dealing with the North’s missile program.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has called for “global action” to counter North Korea. But in a joint statement issued late Tuesday, Beijing and Moscow called for a “double suspension” that would see Pyongyang freeze its weapon program and the U.S. and South Korea stop joint military exercises. 

Instead, the maneuvers went ahead in what U.S. Pacific Command called an “ironclad” show of resolve, with the U.S. Army and the South Korea military fired missiles off the eastern coast of South Korea. 

A U.S. commander warned that North Korea’s action threatened the tense balance on the Korean Peninsula since the end of the Korean War.

...

“Self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war,” Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, and Gen Lee Sun-jin, chairman of the South’s joint chiefs of staff, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, North Korea’s leader Kim threatened more tests and taunted Trump, calling the ICBM test an Independence Day gift, according to North Korean state media.

South Korean authorities described the North’s test as a two-stage missile with a range of about 4,300 to 5,000 miles — enough to reach Alaska and other parts of North America.

Daniel Pinkston, a lecturer in international relations at Troy University in Seoul, said he saw no chance the U.S. and South Korea would agree to halt joint exercises, especially after the North’s latest missile test. “It’s a non-starter, it’s just not going to happen,” he said.

But there also appears to be very little international consensus on what to do next.

Deng Yuwen, a Beijing-based expert on North Korea, sees a growing divide between the positions of the U.S., South Korea and Japan, on one hand, and China and Russia on the other. 

 “Two opposing blocs have been formed,” he said. 

South Korea’s defense minister, Han Min-koo, said there is high probability Pyongyang will stage another nuclear test. He also noted gains in their efforts to miniaturize a warhead — both steps toward developing nuclear-tipped weapon capable of hitting the mainland United States.

Trump’s efforts with China took shape during talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in April, where Washington and Beijing appeared to put aside differences in the name of cooperation on North Korea and trade.

In recent weeks, there were increasing signs that Trump is frustrated with China’s progress. On June 21, he tweeted: “It has not worked out.”

On Tuesday, as news of the North Korean test broke, but before missile was confirmed to be an ICBM, the president vented again. “Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer,” he wrote.

“Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!” He did not say what type of move he hoped for.

The focus on Chinese efforts has exasperated Beijing, which insists it has done its part to pressure Pyongyang and resents being singled out. 

“The international community has no solutions,” said Song Xiaojun, who used to run a government linked-military magazine. “The U.S. wants to transfer the burdens to China.”

Both foreign and Chinese analysts expressed frustration that the United States did not seem focused on getting North Korea to the table. 

“The first obvious step is talking to them. That’s just kind of diplomacy 101,” said John Delury, an assistant professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University. 

“Obama didn’t do enough about that either,” he added. “There has been a severe drought of talking at a high level with North Koreans.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing would push for dialogue at the United Nations. “We hope the relevant discussions of the North Korea nuclear issue focus on dialogue, negotiation, and peaceful settlement as soon as possible,” he said. 

“Self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war,” -- yeah, we're screwed, neither KJU nor the TT have self-restraint.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"As U.S. and South Korea conduct military exercises, North Korea’s leader taunts Trump over ICBM "

  Reveal hidden contents

BEIJING — Tensions over North Korea’s July 4 missile test mounted Wednesday, with the U.S. and South Korean forces conducting military exercises and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appearing to personally taunt the president of the United States.

The latest launch was a display of the North’s longest-reaching weapon yet — an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range that experts say covers Alaska. It now sharply boosts pressure on President Trump and his allies to carve out a strategy on North Korea amid deep international divisions over how to respond to an increasingly defiant regime in Pyongyang.

In a stark warning, top U.S. and South Korean commanders said the North risked tipping the peninsula toward war.

Before his inauguration, Trump said North Korea’s plan to develop an ICBM capable of hitting the United States “won’t happen” and has since made tough talk on the issue a signature.

Still, Trump’s main strategy to rein in North Korea had counted on help from China, which is the North’s main financial lifeline. On Wednesday, Trump further called out China for failing to tighten the economic noose.

“Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us — but we had to give it a try,” Trump tweeted.

Trump did not note the source of the statistic, but Chinese data released in April showed China’s trade with the North grew 37.4 percent during the first three months of the year compared with the same period in 2016. China said the trade grew even as it complied with U.N. sanctions and stopped buying North Korean coal.

Now with Trump’s China outreach apparently on the rocks, there were few clear signs on how to seek international agreement on dealing with the North’s missile program.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has called for “global action” to counter North Korea. But in a joint statement issued late Tuesday, Beijing and Moscow called for a “double suspension” that would see Pyongyang freeze its weapon program and the U.S. and South Korea stop joint military exercises. 

Instead, the maneuvers went ahead in what U.S. Pacific Command called an “ironclad” show of resolve, with the U.S. Army and the South Korea military fired missiles off the eastern coast of South Korea. 

A U.S. commander warned that North Korea’s action threatened the tense balance on the Korean Peninsula since the end of the Korean War.

...

“Self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war,” Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, and Gen Lee Sun-jin, chairman of the South’s joint chiefs of staff, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, North Korea’s leader Kim threatened more tests and taunted Trump, calling the ICBM test an Independence Day gift, according to North Korean state media.

South Korean authorities described the North’s test as a two-stage missile with a range of about 4,300 to 5,000 miles — enough to reach Alaska and other parts of North America.

Daniel Pinkston, a lecturer in international relations at Troy University in Seoul, said he saw no chance the U.S. and South Korea would agree to halt joint exercises, especially after the North’s latest missile test. “It’s a non-starter, it’s just not going to happen,” he said.

But there also appears to be very little international consensus on what to do next.

Deng Yuwen, a Beijing-based expert on North Korea, sees a growing divide between the positions of the U.S., South Korea and Japan, on one hand, and China and Russia on the other. 

 “Two opposing blocs have been formed,” he said. 

South Korea’s defense minister, Han Min-koo, said there is high probability Pyongyang will stage another nuclear test. He also noted gains in their efforts to miniaturize a warhead — both steps toward developing nuclear-tipped weapon capable of hitting the mainland United States.

Trump’s efforts with China took shape during talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in April, where Washington and Beijing appeared to put aside differences in the name of cooperation on North Korea and trade.

In recent weeks, there were increasing signs that Trump is frustrated with China’s progress. On June 21, he tweeted: “It has not worked out.”

On Tuesday, as news of the North Korean test broke, but before missile was confirmed to be an ICBM, the president vented again. “Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer,” he wrote.

“Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!” He did not say what type of move he hoped for.

The focus on Chinese efforts has exasperated Beijing, which insists it has done its part to pressure Pyongyang and resents being singled out. 

“The international community has no solutions,” said Song Xiaojun, who used to run a government linked-military magazine. “The U.S. wants to transfer the burdens to China.”

Both foreign and Chinese analysts expressed frustration that the United States did not seem focused on getting North Korea to the table. 

“The first obvious step is talking to them. That’s just kind of diplomacy 101,” said John Delury, an assistant professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University. 

“Obama didn’t do enough about that either,” he added. “There has been a severe drought of talking at a high level with North Koreans.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing would push for dialogue at the United Nations. “We hope the relevant discussions of the North Korea nuclear issue focus on dialogue, negotiation, and peaceful settlement as soon as possible,” he said. 

“Self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war,” -- yeah, we're screwed, neither KJU nor the TT have self-restraint.

Tillerson's probably running around with his hair on fire, punching himself in the face. I'd be mad at myself if I gave up a super-sweet job with a billion dollar salary as top dog at an oil company to work for this shit-show.

[fraurosena]

6 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Tillerson's probably running around with his hair on fire, punching himself in the face. I'd be mad at myself if I gave up a super-sweet job with a billion dollar salary as top dog at an oil company to work for this shit-show.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No shit: "Trump has never had a plan for dealing with North Korea"

Spoiler

We forget sometimes that President Trump’s political rhetoric was forged not over years of policymaking or in discussions with experts on foreign policy and domestic issues, but in weekly phone interviews with “Fox and Friends.” Before he declared his candidacy, the real estate developer and TV personality would appear on the program every Monday morning, weighing in on the issues of the day as the hosts offered their now-familiar lack of criticism of his musings.

On April 8, 2013, for example, Trump called in to discuss a variety of subjects: his show, “Celebrity Apprentice,” WrestleMania — oh, and North Korea.

Host Steve Doocy broached that subject by noting that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un might soon test a nuclear weapon “or do something dopey like that” — but that China might actually be starting to put pressure on the rogue nation.

“Well, I think China has total control over the situation,” Trump responded. North Korea “wouldn’t exist for a month without China. And I think China, frankly, as you know — and I’ve been saying it for a long time, and people are starting to see that I’m right — China is not our friend.”

He had been saying this for a while, in fact. He tweeted about it in March of that year, saying that, “China could solve this problem easily if they wanted to, but they have no respect for our leaders.” A few weeks later, another tweet: “North Korea can’t survive, or even eat, without the help of China. China could solve this problem with one phone call — they love taunting us!”

...

How did “Fox and Friends” reply to Trump’s argument? Well, the conversation quickly transitioned to Trump having been inaugurated into the pro wrestling Hall of Fame.

To be fair, Trump wasn’t a politician then, so there was much less of a reason to demand a hard answer. Of course, there was also little reason to ask his opinion. But this is the crucible in which Trump’s policy on North Korea was formed — and over the course of the presidential campaign, it didn’t evolve much.

During the Republican primary debates last year, Trump’s argument was consistent: North Korea was China’s problem, and China wasn’t dealing with it because they didn’t respect President Barack Obama since Obama wouldn’t strong-arm them. In a January 2016 debate, Trump argued that China was “ripping us on trade” and that the country was “devaluing their currency,” implying that he might use tariffs and a crackdown on that manipulation to bring China to heel on the North Korea issue.

The following month, Trump put the whole issue in China’s lap:

I deal with them. They tell me. They have total, absolute control, practically, of North Korea. They are sucking trillions of dollars out of our country — they’re rebuilding China with the money they take out of our country. I would get on with China, let China solve that problem. They can do it quickly and surgically. That’s what we should do with North Korea.

In a debate the following March, Trump criticized how Obama and other presidents had handled tensions, saying that “every time this maniac from North Korea does anything, we immediately send our ships. We get virtually nothing.” (In April of this year, Trump’s administration said it was sending an armada to North Korea in response to Kim’s saber-rattling, but no ships were actually en route.)

To the New York Times at that time, Trump was explicit in his charge that Obama was impotent on the issue.

China says well we’ll try. I can see them saying, “We’ll try, we’ll try.” And I can see them laughing in the room next door when they’re together. So China should be talking to North Korea. But China’s tweaking us. China’s toying with us. They are when they’re building in the South China Sea. They should not be doing that but they have no respect for our country and they have no respect for our president.

In a speech in April 2016, Trump said that “President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its aggression and expands even further with its nuclear reach. Our president has allowed China to continue its economic assault on American jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade rules — or apply the leverage on China necessary to rein in North Korea.”

Once he won the GOP presidential nomination, Trump repeatedly hammered Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on her failure to curtail the North Korea problem when she was the secretary of state. His campaign created a lengthy list of ways in which Clinton had failed, citing news reports of successful nuclear tests and rocket launches a few months into Clinton’s State Department tenure. Despite that, his campaign’s national defense platform included only one mention of North Korea, arguing that the United States should bolster its missile defenses.

During the general-election debates, Trump stuck to the same theme. “China should solve that problem for us,” he said in September 2016. “China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.”

When Trump met with Obama during the presidential transition, Obama reportedly warned Trump that North Korea would be the most urgent problem he would face. Trump, during that period, continued to argue that China must address the North Korea threat and that, under his watch, no North Korean weapon could strike the United States.

...

Once he became president, though, Trump’s tone shifted.

In April of this year, with the 100-day mark of his presidency looming, Trump told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo that getting China to fix the problem was not that simple. Describing a conversation with President Xi Jinping of China, Trump said that North Korea was the first thing he brought up. However, Xi “then explain[ed] thousands of years of history with Korea. Not that easy.”

“In other words,” Trump said, “not as simple as people would think.”

Since his inauguration, his tone on Twitter has oscillated between blaming China for North Korea and dismissing China as unnecessary in containing the problem.

...

China can fix this and needs to. Maybe China can fix this. If China doesn’t fix this, we will. China isn’t fixing this, but can.

The reason for this back-and-forth is obvious: Trump promised that he could put pressure on the Chinese to cut off North Korea, forcing that nation to end its nuclear ambitions. But once Trump took office, that policy proved to be much harder than he’d presented. So, lacking an obvious solution (since none exists), he continues to try to blame China’s policy while explaining why the Chinese haven’t been moved to action.

As he’s done so, he’s been put in the uncomfortable position of having to wave away his past promises. On labeling China a currency manipulator, for example, he told “Fox and Friends” in April that he wouldn’t press that issue as long as China was working with the United States on North Korea.

“[W]hat am I going to do, start a trade war with China in the middle of him working on a bigger problem — frankly — with North Korea?” Trump said to host Ainsley Earhardt. “So I’m dealing with China with great respect. I have great respect for him. We’ll see what he can do. Now maybe he won’t be able to help. That’s possible. I think he’s trying, but maybe he won’t be able to help. And that’s a whole different story. So we’ll see what happens.”

He said as much on Twitter.

...

To Earhardt, Trump also praised China’s rejection of coal ships from North Korea as evidence that the country was trying to pressure the North Koreans. On Wednesday morning, though, he seemed to claim defeat.

...

The implication, then, is that Trump will now take the economic actions against China that he once promised.

But, then, he’s already given himself an out on talking about what he intends to do. During a news conference in February, Trump insisted to reporters that, in essence, his plans for North Korea were none of their business.

“I don’t have to tell you. I don’t want to be one of these guys that say, ‘Yes, here’s what we’re going to do.’ I don’t have to do that. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea,” he said. “I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea. And I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do with Iran. You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.”

The president’s current conundrum is twofold. First, there’s no easy solution. Second, Trump promised that there was one.

Had his policy been crafted by a team other than Fox’s early-morning talk show hosts, that second problem might not exist.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"President Trump may be about to face his first full-blown international crisis"

Spoiler

...

Up until now, the administration’s approach to North Korea has been a combination of public chest-thumping and hope that China would take care of the problem for us. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and apparently believed that once he presented Xi with a truly spectacular piece of chocolate cake, then the premier would put a prompt end to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Xi attempted to educate Trump on the complexities of the situation. “After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Trump said.

But as we’ve seen in other areas, such as health care, while Trump can be disabused of his childishly simplistic view of a policy challenge, his newfound appreciation for the complexity of an issue will be only temporary. Before long, he goes right back to thinking there are easy solutions to every problem.

Just a few days later, Vice President Pence went to South Korea and issued stern warnings to Kim about how strong and resolute Trump is. “North Korea would do well not to test his resolve,” Pence said, then went to the demilitarized zone and stared manfully at North Korean territory while the cameras clicked away. “I thought it was important that people on the other side of the DMZ see our resolve in my face,” he said afterward.

The administration didn’t place all its hopes in the power of Mike Pence’s face, however. Whenever the subject of North Korea came up, Trump and members of his administration would repeat that “the era of strategic patience is over,” without saying exactly what era we’re in now. A week ago the administration imposed sanctions on Chinese companies doing business with North Korea, but that didn’t have a transformative effect on China’s perspective. Then, when Tuesday’s launch happened, the president responded with typical thoughtfulness:

...

That’s not to mention the fact that if Kim truly thought he was about to overthrown, he might unleash whatever nuclear weapons he has, along with any other weapons of mass destruction the country possesses.

The idea that Kim will voluntarily halt his missile and nuclear weapons programs because the president sent some more tough-talkin’ tweets and the vice president made his “resolute” face seems highly unlikely. Given the fact that a military strike from the United States could set off another Korean War, negotiations with the North seem like a logical part of the solution, but there are some reasons that might not happen. We don’t have much diplomatic capability these days; the State Department is barely functioning, and among the many key positions for which the Trump administration has not even bothered to nominate someone is ambassador to South Korea. And it’s clear that the president, for all his talk of dealmaking, sees negotiation with other countries as a sign of weakness.

...

It’s also important to understand that as much as we see Kim as a lunatic or a buffoon, if his goal is the survival of his regime, pursuing nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them is perfectly rational. After all, Saddam Hussein didn’t have them, and look what happened to him. The higher the cost of a military strike against North Korea, the safer he’ll feel.

...

As the U.S. military commander on the Korean Peninsula said Tuesday in a joint statement with his South Korean counterpart, “Self restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice and war.” Can President Trump exercise that restraint? What happens when in a moment of anger he suggests a military strike? Will his saner advisers be able to rein in his worst impulses? How important will it be for Trump to save face and look strong? Given his thin skin, how much of an impact will personal attacks from Kim and criticisms at home have on his decision-making? How will he react when faced with a choice between two bad options?

This isn’t a full-blown crisis yet. But it could become one, and for the first time Trump will be truly tested. He hasn’t done a lot to inspire confidence so far.

I'm sorry, this situation is anything but funny, but the thought of Pence "staring manfully at North Korean territory" just makes me snicker.

[GreyhoundFan]

"How President Trump could tweet his way into nuclear war with North Korea"

Spoiler

Pyongyang is paying close attention to signals the White House may not even realize it's sending.

North Korea’s apparent test of an intercontinental ballistic missile puts it closer to having the ability to hit the United States with a nuclear warhead. This is an extraordinarily dangerous development.

I worked on North Korea policy in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, at the State Department and on the National Security Council, so I know firsthand just how difficult the challenges posed by North Korea are to deal with. I know how constrained the policy options are, and I’m familiar with the many difficult choices involved in selecting from a menu of bad options. And I know the incredibly complicated coordination — both within our own government, and with our allies and partners — that is necessary to implement a strategy to handle it.

But President Trump’s reaction to North Korea’s missile test was to immediately reach for his phone and sound off with chest-thumping statements on Twitter.  This is a very reckless reaction, and one that risks miscalculation by adversary and ally alike.

...

North Korea will parse every word of Trump’s Twitter statements to try to understand what they mean. That’s because North Korea uses its own propaganda mouthpieces in an intricate way to signal its intentions to both internal and external audiences. As a government official working on North Korea, I spent hours working with analysts poring over North Korean statements to understand Pyongyang’s thinking — whether and how it differs from past statements — and cutting through the bluster to identify the core point it was communicating. Its words are carefully chosen, and it uses different formulas to send different signals.

We know from watching Pyongyang’s reactions to previous U.S. statements that it read our words in a similar way. North Korean officials will look for clear signals of intention in Trump’s tweets. The problem is, it’s not clear that Trump has any idea what his intentions are. He is sending signals that foreign officials will attach meanings to — meanings he may not have intended and might not even realize he’s sending.

Trump urged China to “put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all.” It’s not clear that he has any idea of what a “heavy move” by China would mean — but Kim Jong Un may well read that to be a call for military action, which in a worst-case scenario could prompt him to take preemptive action. It’s not clear what Trump would do to back up whatever a “heavy move” might be, either.

In fact, it’s not clear that Trump has any sense of what our strategy toward North Korea is. And despite attempts by members of his Cabinet to articulate a strategy through clearer messaging, such as Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s speech on North Korea at the Shangri-La Dialogue in June, Trump’s words effectively nullify them in Pyongyang — where the idea that the president’s statements would matter less than those of his subordinates simply would not compute. The remarks of his Cabinet officials become less credible in foreign capitals when the commander in chief conveys a different message in 140 characters.

That’s not the case just for North Korea; Trump’s vague words will surely leave Chinese officials scratching their heads, too. It’s clear that Trump wants China to do more — he sent off one final tweet before boarding Air Force One for Poland on Wednesday saying “so much for China working with us.” But it’s simply not as easy as demanding it be so. Getting China to do more on North Korea takes a clear articulation of what we want them to do, and the consequences for failing to do so. We cannot simply wash our hands of the problem and hope China takes care of it. But issuing vague demands on Twitter will only generate confusion in Beijing. Words that Pyongyang could see as threatening military action may actually elicit the opposite reaction in Beijing, as China would probably not want North Korea to believe it is coordinating with the United States on such a plan.

Our allies are also left confused by Trump’s messaging. It’s not clear what Trump means when he says that its “hard to believe South Korea and Japan will put up with this for much longer.” But Tokyo will surely recall Trump’s statement during the campaign that if Japan and North Korea went to war, “Good luck. Enjoy yourself, folks.” His initial reaction failed to provide the kind of reassurance about defense cooperation that both Seoul and Tokyo expect. South Korea and Japan may well be wondering whether they can still count on the United States.

If our allies, partners and adversaries all attach meaning to Trump’s words that are in no way what he intended, the problem isn’t just one of mere confusion. Deterring North Korea from taking dangerous actions and reassuring our allies of the credibility of our defense are both critical. But both deterrence and reassurance are based on credibility and capability — and credibility requires clear signaling of intentions.

Trump’s vague, blustery words, unattached to any strategy and without any plan to back up whatever he did mean, will undermine both our deterrence and our reassurance, which we have spent decades building. This could lead to miscalculation by North Korea or our allies. Such miscalculation could lead to war: Trump could literally tweet us into a nuclear war.

We know that Kim Jong Un is thin-skinned and will probably take Trump’s comment about “this guy” as a personal insult. Or Kim may be confused — after all, just a few months ago, Trump said he would be “honored” to meet with Kim under the right circumstances. To be clear, I don’t care at all about Kim’s feelings. But I do care about whether an offhand, hotheaded remark could provoke Kim to take actions that would have real consequences. Picking a Twitter fight with a nuclear-armed dictator is not wise — this is not reality TV anymore.

The White House has sent mixed messages about whether it wants Trump’s Twitter statements to be considered official statements. But it doesn’t matter how the White House wants to spin them — our adversaries and allies alike attach great weight to his every word, and they may calculate decisions based on what Trump says on Twitter.

Bluster and chest-thumping may feel good — but it will not make us safer. The threat posed by North Korea is serious, urgent and reaching a critical point. It requires a real, coordinated strategy in which the president works in concert with his national security team to protect the country.

Unfortunately, the TT is incapable of restraint.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump warns of ‘severe’ consequences for North Korea as Russia, China balk at tough U.S. talk"

Spoiler

BEIJING — President Trump warned Thursday that North Korea could face “some pretty severe” consequences after its defiant test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, but Washington also confronted firm opposition from Russia and China over any possible response.

Trump did not specify potential U.S.-directed punishment for North Korea, which on Tuesday launched a missile that experts say had a range capable of reaching Alaska. Yet efforts to find consensus among world powers appeared to hit a wall — sharply limiting Trump’s options.

New sanctions would have little effect unless backed by China, which is the North’s financial lifeline. Russia also has rejected further economic pressures on the regime of Kim Jung Un.

With key players at odds, Trump must now find a way forward as he heads into Group of 20 meetings in Germany later Thursday. In Germany, Trump is expected to have his second meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and his first with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.

In Warsaw, Trump said the United States was considering “some pretty severe things” in response to what he called “very, very bad behavior” from the North, though he did not mention any specific plans.

“Something will have to be done about it,” he said.

At an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley accused China and Russia of “holding the hands” of the North Korean leader Kim.

Haley chided Beijing and Moscow for not supporting a resolution that would tighten sanctions and hinted that the United States would consider the use of force.

“One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces,” she said. “We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction.”

Her words were met with criticism from Vladimir Safronkov, Russia’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, who called stricter sanctions “not acceptable” and military action “inadmissible.”

At a daily briefing in Beijing on Thursday, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry backed him up, calling for calm in response to U.S. remarks. 

After his first meeting with Xi in April, Trump came out confident that China was on his side and would pressure Pyongyang to stop building weapons. That plan, as he recently tweeted, “has not worked out.”

In recent weeks, Trump has stepped up his criticism of China. “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40 percent in the first quarter,” he tweeted Wednesday, without noting the source of the statistic. “So much for China working with us — but we had to give it a try!”

But U.S. tough talk seems unlikely to bring Beijing on side, experts said. 

The U.S. response to the ICBM test so far has encompassed joint military exercises with the South Koreans, calls for stricter sanctions on those doing business with North Korea and high-level warnings of military action — all of which are at odds with Chinese plans.

It’s not that China does not care about the North Korean threat — it does — but that it sees it differently, analysts said. 

Beijing and Pyongyang were once communist brothers-in-arms at war with American forces. Those days are long gone, but the memory of the 1950-1953 Korean War looms large.

The fact that thousands of U.S. soldiers are still stationed in South Korea is a sore point for Beijing, which would rather not have the American military at their doorstep. The Chinese side often sees U.S. moves in South Korea, from joint exercises to missile defense as maneuvers designed to counter Chinese military might.

Indeed, the “double suspension” plan pitched by China and Russia in the wake of the ICBM test calls for the United States and South Korea to suspend joint military exercises and for North Korea to freeze its weapons programs.

Over the years, Trump has said again and again that China is the key to squeezing the regime into submission. However, China does not appear willing to topple Kim.

“It’s not very likely that China will follow the will of the U.S. and put a ‘heavy move’ on North Korea, like what President Trump has called for,” said Deng Yuwen, a Beijing-based expert on North Korea.

“It would expand sanctions, but there is a bottom line and the bottom line is that it won’t sanction North Korea such that it causes chaos in the North,” he added.

Lastly, Beijing does not have the same sense of urgency when it comes to the North Korea. China has always been in reach of North Korea’s military, so the development of an ICBM is not as much of a game-changer. 

Plus, China’s leadership remains focused on domestic issues, namely key political meetings set for the fall, said Michael Kovrig, a Beijing-based senior adviser for the International Crisis Group, and officials are unlikely to make any move that could threaten their bases of support.

“Chinese analysts continue to argue that no amount of pressure, short of what might cause a collapse, will bring North Korea to denuclearize,” Kovrig said.

“Beijing’s prescription is still to coax rather than to pressure. Unlike the U.S., it’s not in a hurry and hopes that economic incentives can gradually induce Pyongyang to moderate its behavior.”

More chest-thumping from the tangerine toddler. Nikki Haley's comments are also worrisome.