Expectations should be low and walking away with nothing is better than signing a bad deal. The can is kicked down the road.
My only real gripe is Trump's continued praise of Kim and stuff like this:He did the same thing with Putin. Saying stuff like this about Kim is really unnecessary:People will try to 'whatabout Obama' or setup a false dichotomy between him talking like this or nuclear war but I don't think it's unreasonable to demand better from our president.
I'm conflicted on that stuff. From the 30,000' view, I don't like it. Digging in deeper (these are questions/potential reasons whether I agree with them or not, vs excuses):
He might be buttering them up (a common business tactic for businessman Trump) for "the greater good".
On Kim, while the buck always stops at the top, it is conceivable he did not know what happened to Warmbier when it happened, just like our president wouldn't know immediately if some guy in Gitmo was about to be beaten half to death by an overzealous E-4. Kim and Trump both seemed to be very specific in the wording about what Kim "didn't know".
Obviously, giving Kim the benefit of the doubt isn't a good look on the face of it. We all know about deaths he has ordered and how those deaths were carried out. But again, the ethics question is on "the greater good" of an agreement that locks down Nork nukes. Is making Kim look good/innocent "on camera" during negotiations regarding one death worth potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives? It's a philosophical debate, IMO, and again, I'm not sure where I stand on it with my limited information sitting in the nosebleed section of the geopolitical bleachers.