No deal better than bad deal?
Since news of the summit ending abruptly broke, many have argued that President Donald Trump’s failure to reach a deal with North Korea was still better than reaching a bad deal.
Jonathan Allen of NBC News wrote in a column that Trump’s “decision to stay away from the dramatic deal-making moment” was “a small victory wrapped in a larger defeat.”
“Without a doubt, Trump put himself in a hole by agreeing to come meet Kim in the North Korean's backyard for a second nuclear summit without so much as a promise that Pyongyang would begin winding down its weapons program,” wrote Allen.
“But what Trump sacrificed in prestige, time and energy pales in comparison to what he — and the U.S. — might have lost had he made the concessions to Kim necessary to strike a deal.”
Jim Geraghty wrote a column for the National Review in which he argued that he believed “Trump had the good sense … to realize that he was not getting a serious offer, and he walked away from the table.”
“You’ll probably see references to this being called a ‘failed summit’ in the news. But this isn’t the worst-case scenario,” continued Geraghty.
“… the worst-case scenario would be if we made serious concessions on sanctions and other issues in exchange for unverifiable promises about North Korea’s nuclear-weapons programs.”