When President-elect Eisenhower visited South Korea in December 1952, he met with South Korea's president, Syngman Rhee, who urged an all-out assault on North Korea.
Eisenhower did not meet with either NoKos or Chinese representatives.
Negotiations for an armistice in Korea took two years and 17 days, including 158 meetings.
The armistice was signed on July 27, 1953.
It remains in effect today, over 70 years later.
CatHerd: "How about Nixon and Ho Chi Minh?
Nope, neither ever showed up at the Paris Peace talks.
Negotiations were led by Kissinger and Le Duc Tho."
Negotiations leading to the January 1973 "Paris Peace Accords" with North Vietnam took over five years.
The result was not "peace", but unilateral surrender by US forces and abandonment of our South Vietnamese allies, leading to their collapse under North Vietnamese assaults in April, 1975.
CatHerd: "Zelensky foolishly painted himself into a corner with his silly law banning negotiations with Russia, which he now claims does not apply to him and only him (because he’s Special)."
In October 2022, Ukraine's Pres. Zelensky issued a decree (similar to a US president's executive order) saying it was impossible to negotiate with Russia's Pres. Putin.
Zelensky's decree was intended to prevent other Ukrainians from negotiating with Russia.
Zelensky can interpret, modify or cancel his October 2022 decree at his own discretion.
CatHerd: "Putin offered “direct talks” between the two sides.
That means representatives of each side meet without going through a third party.
It does not mean heads of state meet face to face."
Right, Putin did not offer to meet with Zelensky, and Zelensky said he will only attend if Putin is there.
Pres. Trump has said he will attend if he can help the process, though it may be that Trump is sending Rubio in his place.
Bottom line: both Korea (1953) and Vietnam (1973) are examples of US "peace negotiations", both took years to conclude and neither was entirely satisfactory.
Indeed, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords amounted to outright US surrender.
I doubt if Pres. Trump intends to repeat either of those patterns in Ukraine.
I'm sure Trump expects face-to-face negotiations will speed up the process from years to weeks or months and perhaps produce results better than abject US surrender (Vietnam) or a war that officially continues to this day (Korea), over 70 years later.
Twist and turn to force history to match your opinions all you like. People do it all the time.
But the fact is, heads of state only meet when thorny contentious issues have already been ironed out by their negotiators and an agreement hammered out. There are very good reasons why this is so.
Even at Camp David, the heads of state only met after previous negotiations and each brought their own negotiating teams to do the bulk of the work. Begin and Sadat very rarely met face to face, with Carter bouncing back and forth between them like a ping pong ball.
As for Zelensky’z decree:
The decree, signed on Tuesday (4 October), officially formalises Zelensky’s comments on Friday (30 September) that Ukraine is ready for dialogue “but with another president of Russia”. “
(snip)
The decree is a response to Putin’s annexation of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts on 30 September...”
Link: https://www.commonspace.eu/news/zelensky-signs-decree-formally-ruling-out-negotiations-putin
The same as above was widely reported by Western and Ukrainian media. Sometime later, it was “clarified” that it was meant to outlaw illegitimate negotiations by unauthorized Ukrainians.
Frankly, it reads like it was issued in a fit of pique. If the goal was to prevent unauthorized negotiations, the decree would have stated that only the president (and possibly those specifically designated by him) could conduct negotiations.
It’s, um, interesting, that having outlawed negotiations with Putin, Zelensky is now insisting on Putin’s presence at the Istanbul talks.
Why would Trump expect face-to-face negotiations between heads of state to speed up the process? He himself appointed Rubio to go, signalling this was to be negotiations at the Foreign Minister/SecState level. It’s better if diplomats do the arguing. Trump himself has remarked on Zelensky’s and Putin’s hatred for one another. Negotiations will naturally go more smoothly minus the personal animosity between the two leaders.
My take: Trump has teased that he might go to Istanbul “if the talks go well”. That’s another signal that at least some basics need be already agreed before heads of state step in. Putin will only go if Trump goes. Trump will only go if there is a tangible benefit — and if Putin goes.
If Zelensky can bend his decree to exclude himself, he can bend it to exclude his duly appointed and publicly named representative(s). If he truly wants to negotiate a lasting peace, he’ll do that. Or -— if there is no one he trusts to negotiate — then show up himself and negotiate with Lavrov.
Right now, it looks like Zelensky is trying to impose a precondition by inappropriately insisting on Putin’s presence as a way to wriggle out and blame it all on Putin, when in reality he’s the one one playing games and obstructing.
In Zelensky’s defense, who can blame him? He cannot settle for anything less than complete Russian capitulation (which obviously won’t happen) or the Banderites in the SBU will have his head. If he gives so much as an inch, he seals his own death warrant. It’s tragic.
You’d be dangerous if you knew anything about history. The Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Nixon and Kissinger did not even remotely equal a Surrender by the United States.
The Accords recognized South Vietnam’s border and were the result of Nixon pounding the North Vietnamese into submission by finally bombing hanoi’s Harbor.
After Nixon was chased from office North Vietnam launched a massive tank attack in violation of the Paris Peace Accords and the Democrats in Congress refused President Ford’s request to even give the South Vietnamese any military equipment.
But why let reality stand in the way of your lectures.