Posted on Sep 27, 2020
"Negotiations with Adversaries"; why do adversaries keep their opponents engaged in negotiations that yield no solution while they beef up?
1.71K
15
11
2
2
0
China has engaged India in dialogue, which marathon discussions have amounted to no real solution yet. In the meantime, China has been beefing up its force including its missile command in Aksai Chin east of Ladakh in India. China is asking India to allow 50 Chinese troops to remain on Finger 4 in the Pangong Tso, which proposal India has rejected. China has suffered frost bite and altitude sickness causing the PLA to evacuate these casualties to the Field Hospital east of Finger 6. India in the Pangong Tso region is from Finger 1 to Finger 4 and China begins from Finger 5 and continues to Finger 8. Due to unsolved situation along the LAC (Line of Actual Control), this face-to-face conflict is set to extend through the winter; temperatures on the fingers surrounding the Pangong Tso is currently -15°C and dropping rapidly.
In Korea, the DPRK was ready to negotiate a deal with the USA. Kim met with Trump three times with no deal reached. The United States wanted the DPRK to accept total denuclearization and in return the DPRK wanted the U.S. to life all sanctions against the DPRK, to include the UN sanctions. Trump was acceptable to this and the DPRK destroyed one of its underground nuclear facilities, but then it was detected that Kim had increased nuclear testing in another nuclear facility. The U.S. retracted its offer to the DPRK. Kim traveled to Beijing and met with Xi before Kim's meetings with Trump.
Are these Negotiations with Adversaries necessary; aren't these meetings deceptive to engage and mislead?
Much-appreciated.
In Korea, the DPRK was ready to negotiate a deal with the USA. Kim met with Trump three times with no deal reached. The United States wanted the DPRK to accept total denuclearization and in return the DPRK wanted the U.S. to life all sanctions against the DPRK, to include the UN sanctions. Trump was acceptable to this and the DPRK destroyed one of its underground nuclear facilities, but then it was detected that Kim had increased nuclear testing in another nuclear facility. The U.S. retracted its offer to the DPRK. Kim traveled to Beijing and met with Xi before Kim's meetings with Trump.
Are these Negotiations with Adversaries necessary; aren't these meetings deceptive to engage and mislead?
Much-appreciated.
Posted in these groups: 
Conflict
Alt Dispute Resolution
Conflict Alt Dispute Resolution
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
8
8
0
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana good read share, in my opinion it's about leverage and dominance in the end state possibly. In laments terms, mind-games.
Solid read/share today. Thanks for the international read:
SPC Margaret Higgins COL Mikel J. Burroughs CPL Dave Hoover Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen SCPO Morris Ramsey PVT Mark Zehner Sgt (Join to see) SSG Michael Noll SSG Robert Mark Odom CPL Douglas Chrysler PO1 Tony Holland SPC Mark Huddleston CW5 Jack Cardwell PO1 William "Chip" Nagel PO1 Lyndon Thomas PO3 Phyllis Maynard Wayne Soares Capt Dwayne Conyers
Solid read/share today. Thanks for the international read:
SPC Margaret Higgins COL Mikel J. Burroughs CPL Dave Hoover Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen SCPO Morris Ramsey PVT Mark Zehner Sgt (Join to see) SSG Michael Noll SSG Robert Mark Odom CPL Douglas Chrysler PO1 Tony Holland SPC Mark Huddleston CW5 Jack Cardwell PO1 William "Chip" Nagel PO1 Lyndon Thomas PO3 Phyllis Maynard Wayne Soares Capt Dwayne Conyers
(8)
(0)
2
2
0
Because they are stalling for time so they can beef up. Without Nukes, DPRK would have no more importance on the global stage than Pitcairn Island.
(2)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
Their main use Is as a diversion ro support their principal benefactor, the PRC. And to serve as a strategic buffer between the western allied ROK and their border with NK...although the ROK is a huge trading partner, it is more important to keep the US at an arms length. It would be far worse to clean up the mess of a NK collapse than to engage them in armed conflict.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Sir, look at world history- a sneak attack is a great force multiplier, keeping your enemy off-balance is too. Hell- N Korea lost- they have yet to do anything more than an Armistice, and they continue to build/re-build,
(1)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
Reunification of Korea was what both Syngman Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted, but each for totally divergent reasons. Kim said push them into the sea and Rhee said rush them into the Yalu River. Reunification of Korea is financially unviable and psychologically impractical. However, in order to maintain peace in the region, South Korea created an entire Ministry of Unification and, what reunification mechanism does the DPRK sport?
China negotiates, not to reach logical conclusions, but to keep its enemies engaged while it amasses its force against the enemy. In Ladakh, China is employing such tactics and in Korea, the DPRK, with Chinese support, negotiated in the same fashion; from the same fabric.
China negotiates, not to reach logical conclusions, but to keep its enemies engaged while it amasses its force against the enemy. In Ladakh, China is employing such tactics and in Korea, the DPRK, with Chinese support, negotiated in the same fashion; from the same fabric.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google