The summit meeting on April 25 in Vladivostok between Russia President Vladimir Putin and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un is a useful lesson in the basic reality that power is the currency of international relations, today as through history.

Putin used the opportunity to underscore the influence of his nation, in Northeast Asia as elsewhere. His leadership orchestrates this impact, despite a weak economy. Kim demonstrated that his own nation has more options in the contemporary power game than dealing only with the United States.

Putin emphasized the importance of the multilateral framework to efforts to curtail and eventually remove North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The Six-Party talks on North Korea nuclear efforts have included China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. along with Pyongyang and Seoul.

These talks currently are on hold, but until a decade ago accounted for limited progress as well as communication. Putin is right they are an important diplomatic mechanism. The U.S. in earlier administrations was active and effective in orchestrating this effort.

Kim specifically dramatized distance from the U.S. government. Among other statements, he declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo must not participate in any future nuclear negotiations.

Last August, President Donald Trump announced that Pompeo would not go to North Korea as planned. The reason given is that the government in Pyongyang has not followed through on expectations to dismantle nuclear weapons facilities or curtail development.

Another reality is the long-term deterioration of the backward communist economy of North Korea. In May 2016, Kim wore a business suit rather than uniform for a Communist Party Congress. He publicly acknowledged economic challenges, no longer avoidable.


These developments appeared to be a prelude to war, yet there has been no evidence that North Korea has mobilized or is mobilizing to invade South Korea. Moreover, Pyongyang’s nuclear program remains rudimentary. Missile tests include some successes, but also dramatic failure.



Yet two months later, Pyongyang tested a missile. The launch was an embarrassing flop. This erratic shifting course implies infighting among factions in the regime rather than total control by Kim and his immediate coterie.

Regarding Korea, President Dwight Eisenhower understood brutal realities of war. Stalled Korean War armistice talks quickly concluded successfully in 1953 following extensive U.S. bombing. Ike focused on getting the job done.

This built on President Truman’s courageous June 1950 decision to defend South Korea against invasion from the North. These presidents provide the example.

Disciplined diplomats are also crucial to success.
