"Negotiations with Adversaries"; why do adversaries keep their opponents engaged in negotiations that yield no solution while they beef up?

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:03:58 -0400

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.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Sep 27 at 2020 10:45 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:45:45 -0400

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:

Response by Maj John Bell made Sep 27 at 2020 11:24 AM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 27 Sep 2020 11:24:13 -0400

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.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Sep 27 at 2020 12:18 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:18:56 -0400

The PRC has used this tactic to their benefit for a long time. This was the entire last year of the Korean War. It's part of wearing down your opponent to reach a deal when you know they don't have the resolve to stay. Especially when you are not accountable to your constituents as your opponent is.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2020 9:22 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Sep 2020 21:22:49 -0400

Sometimes it's to try to get the other side to capitulate to your demands - Vietnam and the US were in "talks" for seven years before the actual peace talks began, and the only thing that was discussed was the shape of the table they'd be sitting at when the "real" talks began. Once a side relents on one topic, they are more likely to relent on others (or at least that's the hope!!).

Other times it's like Star Lord's "Dance-Off" at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy... "I'm distracting you, you big turd-blossom!"

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Sep 28 at 2020 7:46 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:46:16 -0400

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,