The video is a bunch of bloopers.
The US, with its pattern of sanctions and threats, clearly prefers hard power to international diplomacy, while its withdrawal from the Iran deal and North Korea summit shows that it doesn’t stick to commitments, analysts told RT.
Just hours after North Korea destroyed its nuclear test site, Donald Trump announced he is canceling his summit with Kim Jong-un which was scheduled to take place in Singapore on June 12.
In a letter to the North Korean leader, Trump said he felt it was "inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting" after "tremendous anger and open hostility" displayed in Pyongyang's most recent statement. He also warned North Korea that the US military “which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world…is ready if necessary.”
Political commentator and journalist John Wight told RT that Trump’s decision to pull out of the summit should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the trajectory of US administration “with any degree of awareness.”
“After all we’ve had a pattern of sanctions and threats: sanctions and threats leveled against Iran recently, sanctions and threats against Russia… China…Venezuela and sanctions, threats and air strikes against Syria,” he explained.
In his view, “this is clearly an administration that believes that US hard power rather than international diplomacy or indeed international law should be the arbiter of international affairs.”
Wight added that he didn’t believe the Trump administration was serious about the Singapore summit from the very beginning.
Trump’s decision “shows the divisions within the US policy,” according to Sreeram Chaulia, Professor & Dean of Jindal School of International Affairs.
“We have a lot of hawks in right-wingers led by people like John Bolton, Mike Pence…They didn’t want these talks to happen. They want regime change,” he told RT.
Asked what more do North Koreans need to do to get Trump to the table even after Pyongyang destroyed its nuclear test site, Chaulia pointed out that “it is a give and take: it has to be based on quid pro quo.”
He noted that the North Koreans have given confidence building measures: “they released those three American citizens, they have closed their nuclear test site. They have been also saying that they will keep a moratorium on missiles and nuclear tests.”
“But Trump was trying to get a unilateral one-sided victory without giving anything in return… If Americans really want stability on the Korean peninsula, they have to give some to get some," he added.
Former US diplomat Jim Jatras agrees that “it is pretty clear that most of the people around President Trump did not want the summit to take place.” In his view, “they were horrified at the thought that Trump would sit across the table eye-to-eye from Kim Jong-un and agree to something that they may not have approved of.”
Jatras also claimed that there is a lot of relief in Washington that the idea of summit has collapsed. “They want a Libyan solution to North Korea. When North Korea gives up its weapons but then is vulnerable to the regime change. And I think that is the underlined reality on the American side that led to the collapse of this talk,” he concluded.   Â
Donald Trump called the cancellation of the US-North Korea Summit “a tremendous setback for North Korea and indeed a setback for the world.”
Charles Shoebridge, security analyst and former UK counter terrorism intelligence officer, said: “It may not be the end of it, but the blame for cancelling the meeting should surely go to the person who has actually cancelled it."
“Trump and the US are saying that the condition of, not the talks, but the success for talks is that North Korea should disarm in a nuclear sense. And it really does seem that is very unlikely to happen. And a reason for that is the record of the US behavior and its allies’ behavior in the wake of other countries disarming,” Shoebridge cited Iraq and Libya as examples.Â
The US’ unilateral pulling out from the Iran deal also sends a message, the analyst said. “Remember, Iran has actually complied with all of the requirements that were made of it in 2015 nuclear deal. It is America that reneged on this agreement. And that is sending a clear message…”
He suspects that the US in the long term is doing “a great deal even more damage to its credibility as an honest broker anywhere in the world because it is simply doesn’t seem to be capable of sticking to the commitments or at least the spirit of the commitments that it is asking others to undertake.”
https://www.rt.com/news/427786-us-north-korea-summit/
Wtf are you talking about?
Link is at the bottom you stupid fuck twat. Try reading. If you can handle it
Fuck off. You fucking stupid inbred backwater hillbilly. You couldn't find your own ass.
Oh fuck off. It's done all the time. I'll do it the way I want. Don't like it. Kiss my arse hole.
Your genius os staggering. You don't wanna read text so you communicate with pictures. Well done. What are you 5?
How about I don't care. You hallway police really need a fucking hobby.
And they get archived alot. Lol! Hahahahahaha. Fucking idiots.
This is your one genius post. So do you just sit there lurking waiting to pounce. Is that your contribution? Well done.
The US, with its pattern of sanctions and threats, clearly prefers hard power to international diplomacy, while its withdrawal from the Iran deal and North Korea summit shows that it doesn’t stick to commitments, analysts told RT.
Just hours after North Korea destroyed its nuclear test site, Donald Trump announced he is canceling his summit with Kim Jong-un which was scheduled to take place in Singapore on June 12.
In a letter to the North Korean leader, Trump said he felt it was "inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting" after "tremendous anger and open hostility" displayed in Pyongyang's most recent statement. He also warned North Korea that the US military “which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world…is ready if necessary.”
Political commentator and journalist John Wight told RT that Trump’s decision to pull out of the summit should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the trajectory of US administration “with any degree of awareness.”
“After all we’ve had a pattern of sanctions and threats: sanctions and threats leveled against Iran recently, sanctions and threats against Russia… China…Venezuela and sanctions, threats and air strikes against Syria,” he explained.
In his view, “this is clearly an administration that believes that US hard power rather than international diplomacy or indeed international law should be the arbiter of international affairs.”
Wight added that he didn’t believe the Trump administration was serious about the Singapore summit from the very beginning.
Trump’s decision “shows the divisions within the US policy,” according to Sreeram Chaulia, Professor & Dean of Jindal School of International Affairs.
“We have a lot of hawks in right-wingers led by people like John Bolton, Mike Pence…They didn’t want these talks to happen. They want regime change,” he told RT.
Asked what more do North Koreans need to do to get Trump to the table even after Pyongyang destroyed its nuclear test site, Chaulia pointed out that “it is a give and take: it has to be based on quid pro quo.”
He noted that the North Koreans have given confidence building measures: “they released those three American citizens, they have closed their nuclear test site. They have been also saying that they will keep a moratorium on missiles and nuclear tests.”
“But Trump was trying to get a unilateral one-sided victory without giving anything in return… If Americans really want stability on the Korean peninsula, they have to give some to get some," he added.
Former US diplomat Jim Jatras agrees that “it is pretty clear that most of the people around President Trump did not want the summit to take place.” In his view, “they were horrified at the thought that Trump would sit across the table eye-to-eye from Kim Jong-un and agree to something that they may not have approved of.”
Jatras also claimed that there is a lot of relief in Washington that the idea of summit has collapsed. “They want a Libyan solution to North Korea. When North Korea gives up its weapons but then is vulnerable to the regime change. And I think that is the underlined reality on the American side that led to the collapse of this talk,” he concluded.   Â
Donald Trump called the cancellation of the US-North Korea Summit “a tremendous setback for North Korea and indeed a setback for the world.”
Charles Shoebridge, security analyst and former UK counter terrorism intelligence officer, said: “It may not be the end of it, but the blame for cancelling the meeting should surely go to the person who has actually cancelled it."
“Trump and the US are saying that the condition of, not the talks, but the success for talks is that North Korea should disarm in a nuclear sense. And it really does seem that is very unlikely to happen. And a reason for that is the record of the US behavior and its allies’ behavior in the wake of other countries disarming,” Shoebridge cited Iraq and Libya as examples.Â
The US’ unilateral pulling out from the Iran deal also sends a message, the analyst said. “Remember, Iran has actually complied with all of the requirements that were made of it in 2015 nuclear deal. It is America that reneged on this agreement. And that is sending a clear message…”
He suspects that the US in the long term is doing “a great deal even more damage to its credibility as an honest broker anywhere in the world because it is simply doesn’t seem to be capable of sticking to the commitments or at least the spirit of the commitments that it is asking others to undertake.”
https://www.rt.com/news/427786-us-north-korea-summit/
FOR THE MORONS. WHO READ THE FIRST SENTENCE THEN STARTED SPOUTING.
YOU GLOW FUCKERS.
Me either. So back the fuck off. Don't like it. Don't fucking look at it. It's simple.
Really? Because it sure garnered alot of attention. Go post some twitter shit.
Ty! Now I don't have to read your vomit.
They just changed the law giving him another term.
Q research at its finest. What a joke.
Awesome research!
The Chechen parliament has drafted a bill in the State Duma that, if passed, would allow Vladimir Putin and all future Russian presidents to remain in office for three consecutive terms instead of the current two.
Russian laws allow regional legislatures to draft federal laws and earlier this month the legislative assembly of the Chechen Republic unanimously voted in favor of the decision to prepare and submit a bill that would allow the same person to remain president more than twice in a row. When presenting the motion the chairman of the assembly, Magomed Daudov, emphasized that it did not diminish the democratic foundations of the Russian state but allowed citizens to better determine their future.
Currently, the Russian constitution allows the same person to run for the presidency for an unlimited number of terms on one condition – there can be no more than two consecutive terms. In 1998, the issue was brought before the Russian Constitutional Court, which ruled that the third and fourth terms would be legal if there is a break between the second and third terms. This is why Putin could not run for president in 2008 after winning in 2000 and 2004. In 2012, the condition regarding consecutive terms was not applicable, so Putin ran again and won.
In April this year the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, called for legislative changes that would allow Putin to be re-elected president after his current term expires in 2024.
“As long as our incumbent president is in good health we must not think about any other head of state. This is my personal opinion and I am not changing it. Right now there is no alternative to Putin,” Kadyrov was quoted as saying by Interfax. He added that this could be done through a nationwide referendum and that in his opinion there was no need to ask for Putin’s consent over the issue.
The Chechen leader noted that many other nations do well without this type of restriction. “Why can China do this and Germany can do this, but not us? If this is in the people’s interest, why can’t we make changes to the law?” he said.
Some federal lawmakers have already supported the proposal. Deputy head of Fair Russia caucus, MP Mikhail Yemelyanov, told Interfax that his party colleagues also think that the limit on two consecutive presidential terms should be lifted.
Others, like deputy chair of the Upper House legislative committee Senator Yelena Afanasyeva, opposed the motion saying that it was wrong to change the constitution on a whim. Afanasyeva recalled that Vladimir Putin himself had repeatedly spoke against any constitutional changes that would prolong his time in office.
“If the Chechen parliamentarians think that such changes are of vital importance they should initiate a nationwide referendum on the issue,” she added.
In the first reaction to the Chechen move, Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that the president did not have the issue of changing the constitutional law on the presidency on his agenda and added that the leader had repeatedly expressed his negative position over changes to the constitution.
In one of the most recent statements, done in an interview with the NBC television in March this year, Putin said that he had never changed the constitution and had no intention to do so in future.
>>1538687 debunked.
Good thing Trump puts America first. Hoe ,any attacks are you all AT?
He grabbed the phone the wrong way. And manages to send a tweet. All without knowing it.
Holy fuck. We are doomed as a civilization.
This what you all call Q research and defend it.
Wow.
We don't know what UNITY is.
It is now referred to as
GLOBALISM.
YUP. Push for unity and these fuckers will shout globalist.
So fuck it. Let's see how we do fighting each other while our children are raped and tortured, our planet decimated and starving.
Go team!
Unity can officially kiss my ass.
Shutting the light off.