What Trump's North Korea diplomacy says about his Russia strategy
Donald Trump says he wants to end the war in Ukraine. It's worth asking what kind of 'peace' he has in mind – and whom it would actually serve. For anyone looking for insights into how Trump's latest diplomatic gamble over Ukraine might unfold, there is already a precedent: his high-stakes engagement with North Korea during his first term.
If history is any guide, the Trump-Putin talks will be flashy, vague and ultimately meaningless – just like his North Korea diplomacy.
Trump's dealings with Kim Jong Un were a masterclass in showmanship. His North Korea talks delivered no lasting diplomatic achievements, but they did produce some unforgettable images and memorable firsts: a sitting US president meeting a North Korean leader for the first time, a handshake and an unprecedented crossing of the DMZ into North Korea and a dramatic departure at the Hanoi Summit.
Each of these moments was presented as historic, but ultimately yielded no denuclearization, no durable peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula and no reduction in threats to Northeast Asia or the world.
Now, as Trump pledges to bring peace to Ukraine and eyes direct negotiations with Putin, the critical questions must be asked: Will his approach to Moscow follow the same pattern as with Pyongyang? Will high-profile negotiations over Ukraine become a spectacle rather than a substantive diplomatic effort? And, most importantly, if peace is achieved who will benefit?
From 2017 to 2019, Trump led highly personalized negotiations with Kim Jong Un. The process moved from escalating rhetoric and chaos to an abrupt pivot, culminating in a series of summits with great photo-ops, a promising but hollow agreement and, ultimately, the collapse of negotiations.
In 2017, Trump heightened tensions by threatening 'fire and fury' against North Korea's 'Little Rocket Man' and warning that he had 'a bigger nuclear button' on his desk. The world braced for war, only for Trump to reverse course as inter-Korean relations improved and announce his intention to negotiate.
At the Singapore Summit in 2018, North Korea agreed to 'work toward denuclearization,' but the agreement lacked specifics, verification mechanisms and any commitment from the United States to lift sanctions. Trump paused joint military exercises with South Korea and declared victory, claiming that the nuclear threat had disappeared.
It hadn't.
A year later, the Hanoi Summit ended in disaster. Trump rejected Kim's proposal to dismantle part of his nuclear arsenal around Yongbyon in exchange for sanctions relief. Determined to appear dominant, Trump walked away from the table, demanding not just nuclear dismantlement but also the elimination of other weapons facilities.
The next move was pure theatrics: in June 2019, Donald Trump stepped into North Korea at the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas in what was widely seen as an attempt to revive interest in a process that had failed already. His staged, highly publicized stunt made headlines, but within months, North Korea resumed its missile tests, proving that Trump's summitry had changed little on the ground.
The lesson should be clear: Trump thrives on gestures and a series of grand performances but lacks the patience for sustained, institutional negotiations. Now, Trump is poised to apply the same formula to Ukraine. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
His negotiations with Moscow may well mirror his North Korea diplomacy – optics-heavy, substance-light and, ultimately, ineffective. Perhaps in Riyadh or Geneva Trump may hold a summit with Vladimir Putin – shaking hands, and announcing a ceasefire. The truce itself may contain only vague security guarantees for Ukraine, lacking any real enforcement mechanisms.
In exchange, Trump could push for lifting sanctions on Russia or freezing military aid to Kyiv, effectively cementing Moscow's territorial gains. Just as North Korea continued its nuclear program after Singapore, Russia could consolidate its control over eastern Ukraine while pretending to engage in one-on-one diplomacy.
The real question is not whether Trump can broker a peace deal, but whether it would hold – or merely become another Singapore, where the adversary benefits while the other side secures no assurances.
The fundamental difference is that Putin is not Kim Jong Un. While Kim needed Trump for legitimacy, Putin does not. North Korea was an isolated regime with limited leverage. Russia, by contrast, has a global network of allies, a wartime economy and a strategic interest in prolonging its aggression.
Unlike Kim, Putin is not looking for recognition – he is looking for concessions. Whereas Kim sought an agreement with Trump to boost his economy and political image, Putin does not need Trump to justify his war –he needs territorial control, sanctions relief and fractures within the Western alliance. If Trump delivers the latter, Putin will gain far more than Kim ever did.
The European dynamics present a different context from the Korean Peninsula. When Trump negotiated with North Korea, South Korean President Moon Jae-in attempted to influence US policy, emphasizing inter-Korean relations and urging Washington to take a more structured approach.
But South Korea learned the hard way that Trump could not be trusted to deliver a breakthrough with Pyongyang. Once Trump shifted his focus to reality TV over sustainability, Seoul was left powerless, facing a weakened security environment and an emboldened North.
Europe should take heed of South Korea's experience and not repeat Seoul's mistake. If Europe fails to assert itself now, it risks finding itself in South Korea's former position – marginalized and unable to shape negotiations that define its own security for years to come.
Trump's – and Vance's – statements thus far suggest that Washington would sideline European allies just as it sidelined Seoul. Korea's passing may foreshadow how Europe will be ignored in a Trump-Putin deal.
The earlier visits by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to Washington signal that European leaders understand the urgency of the moment. If they expect to shape the future of Ukraine, they must act now. Beyond seizing Russian assets, Europe must accelerate Ukraine's EU accession, increase its defense spending, and ramp up military production and aid. The time for passive diplomacy is over.
As European Union chief diplomat Kaja Kallas commented in the context of the fallout between President Zelensky and Trump in the White House in late February, 'the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.' Europe has a choice: lead, or be led. The message is clear: It's time to 'man up' (not 'Moon up' as South Korea did) – or be written out of history.
Tereza Novotna PhD is a political scientist and foreign policy analyst specializing in European external relations, EU-Asia affairs and global security. She is a senior affiliate researcher and lecturer at the Free University of Berlin, a senior associate research fellow at EUROPEUM, a Korea associate at 9DashLine and a non-resident Kelly fellow at the Pacific Forum. Her commentary has appeared in 38 North, The Diplomat, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, NK Pro and the Bulletin of the East-West Center Washington among others.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump breaks with G7's China-Russia stance, Nvidia expo plan hailed: SCMP daily highlights
Catch up on some of SCMP's biggest China stories of the day. If you would like to see more of our reporting, please consider subscribing US President Donald Trump on Monday said he would welcome the inclusion of China and Russia in the G7, putting him directly at odds with the bloc's position on the two countries just as the Group of Seven summit got under way in Canada. Illustration: SCMP As other foreign companies still weigh relocating production to avoid tariffs or align with Trump's reshoring agenda, many Chinese firms have already begun shifting their focus away from the US, uncertain whether recent trade ceasefires signal any meaningful change in the longer term. China has announced that US semiconductor giant Nvidia will attend its flagship supply chain event for the first time, despite growing tensions between the two countries over a string of trade and technology issues.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
As Israel pummels Iran, what are Tehran's options for retaliatory strikes against its foe?
As Israel pounds Iran with air strikes targeting military facilities and its nuclear sites, officials in Tehran have proposed a variety of steps the Islamic republic could take outside launching retaliatory missile barrages. Advertisement Those proposals mirror those previously floated by Iran in confrontations with either Israel or the United States in the last few decades. They included disrupting maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leaving the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and other attacks by militants. Here's a look at what those options could mean – both to Iran and the wider Middle East. Targeting the Strait of Hormuz The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20 per cent of all oil traded globally passes. The strait is in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, which at its narrowest point is just 33km (21 miles) wide. The width of the shipping lane in either direction is only 3km (2 miles). Anything affecting it ripples through global energy markets, potentially raising the price of crude oil. That then trickles down to consumers through what they pay for petrol and other oil products. There has been a wave of attacks on ships attributed to Iran since 2019, following President Donald Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimposing crushing sanctions on Tehran. Advertisement US forces routinely travel through the strait, despite sometimes-tense encounters with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force answerable only to Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet conducts those operations, known as freedom of navigation missions, to ensure the waterway remains open to business. Iran views those passages as challenging its sovereignty – as if it operated off the coast of the US. Since the Israeli attacks began, Iranian officials have repeatedly raised the possibility of blocking the strait – which is likely to draw an immediate American response.
Asia Times
4 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump makes mockery of G7 at critical diplomatic juncture
When the world teeters on the brink of another full-scale regional war, diplomacy—however imperfect—becomes the thin thread that prevents catastrophe. It is precisely during these moments that multilateral institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) must function with unity, sobriety and respect for each other's contributions. Unfortunately, the latest summit in Canada revealed more fissures than cohesion, and not due to structural disagreement on trade, finance or even Ukraine. Rather, it was the unnecessarily sharp personal rebuke issued by US President Donald Trump against French President Emmanuel Macron that punctured the diplomatic atmosphere. At issue was Macron's assertion to reporters that Trump was leaving the G7 early to potentially broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. 'There is indeed an offer to meet and exchange,' Macron said, adding that the United States had 'assured they will find a ceasefire and since they can pressure Israel, things may change.' Whether borne of informed speculation or confidential briefings, Macron's tone was hopeful, hinting that the United States—despite its own political tumult—might bring its considerable leverage to bear in ending a volatile conflict in the Middle East. Trump, however, was quick to scoff at Macron's remarks, dismissing them as 'wrong,' and asserting that his abrupt departure from the G7 had nothing to do with any potential ceasefire. In a statement posted to his own platform, Social Truth, Trump ominously advised, 'Everyone should evacuate from Tehran'—a message that may have caused more confusion than clarity, not least for the citizens of Tehran and the diplomats working to contain hostilities. But Trump's derision goes far beyond a semantic quarrel. It points to a deeper pattern of undermining traditional allies, resisting the norms of collective diplomacy and reducing serious multilateral efforts to public theater. The G7, for all its shortcomings, has historically operated on a delicate balance of peer respect and strategic coordination. To have one of its most powerful members lash out against another, particularly when the latter is attempting to steer attention toward peace efforts, corrodes that balance. This is not the first time Trump has treated France—and by extension, Europe—as an adversary rather than a partner. In previous summits, he dismissed the importance of NATO, mocked French concerns over climate change, and refused to support multilateral trade mechanisms that form the bedrock of European economic stability. Yet what happened in Canada is different: it occurred not merely against the backdrop of a policy disagreement but amid the specter of regional war. Israel and Iran are currently in a perilous dance of escalation. With Israeli strikes reportedly targeting Iranian military sites and Iran retaliating via drone and missile launches, the region is careening toward a wider confrontation. A war that could suck in neighboring states, global energy markets and even non-regional actors like Russia and China. It is precisely in such moments that the G7 must act as a stabilizing force—not an arena of personal vendettas. To suggest that Macron was out of line for voicing what many suspected—that Trump's early exit may have been motivated by a secret diplomatic mission—is disingenuous. Even if Macron's remarks were premature, they reflected a yearning for progress, not a challenge to Trump's authority. The French president, after all, is a seasoned leader who understands the need for discretion but also recognizes the value of positive signaling. His comment was an opening, an invitation for diplomacy to flourish. Trump chose instead to shut that window with a tweet and a rebuke. Moreover, Trump's declaration that 'everyone should evacuate from Tehran' only adds to the confusion. What does it signal? An imminent strike? A covert operation gone awry? Or merely another instance of bluster designed to unnerve adversaries and allies alike? In the absence of clarity, the message contributes to anxiety, not resolution. For diplomats in the region, such ambiguity can be paralyzing. For ordinary citizens in Tehran, it may very well provoke panic. One must also question the wisdom of using a social media post to relay potential security warnings, rather than relying on established diplomatic channels. The State Department or the National Security Council is equipped to issue warnings with nuance and legal authority. When leaders bypass these institutions to score points or spread fear, the result is a governance vacuum. Beyond the immediate implications, this latest episode raises a larger concern about the erosion of diplomatic norms in the post-2020 world order. The G7 was once a forum for proactive global leadership: addressing financial crises, coordinating humanitarian relief, and charting climate policy. Today, it often appears more performative than practical, with headline-grabbing gestures replacing substantive commitments. Trump's consistent sidelining of allies, whether France, Germany, Canada, or Japan, has contributed to this decline. His transactional worldview—where friends are judged not by shared values but by personal loyalty—makes stable cooperation difficult. By treating Macron's olive branch as an insult, Trump not only insults France but signals to the rest of the G7 that independent thought will be met with disdain. This is a dangerous precedent. For when diplomacy becomes personalized and weaponized, its primary function—to reduce conflict through dialogue—evaporates. If leaders at the G7 cannot even agree on the tone of their own statements, let alone on a strategy for peace in the Middle East, then the institution is at risk of irrelevance. To be clear, Macron is not beyond critique. His own record on foreign policy has been mixed. But in this instance, his attempt to steer global attention toward a ceasefire should be viewed not as meddling, but as leadership. That Trump cannot—or will not—see this speaks volumes about his priorities. If President Trump is indeed in a position to facilitate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, then let him proceed. But undermining an ally who voices hope for that possibility serves no one—not the G7, not the Middle East and certainly not the credibility of the United States on the global stage. In diplomacy, perception matters as much as action. And at this critical moment, the perception is clear: Trump prefers deflection over dialogue, and derision over diplomacy. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar Ruhanas Harun is professor at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, National Defense University Malaysia.
