It may look like reporter Andy Salmon and author Michael Breen squaring off with each other, drawing looks of concern from the other participants. True, we parted our ways without lunch as in the Hanoi summit, the subject of the Times' roundtable, but the conversation was conducted in quite a civilized manner with no punches thrown at but pulled from each other. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

By Andrew Salmon

There had been widespread expectations and high hopes, but in the event, the highly anticipated" and "historic" second summit, held in Hanoi between North Korean and the United States, crashed and burned.

For most of us in Hanoi ― sipping the excellent Vietnamese coffee and enjoying the ease of covering a summit in which there were only two players, and no delegations to chase around town to try to doorstop ― it was a shock outcome.

Things had looked so good. There had been grins and mutual back pats between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump. The chemistry between the delegations looked excellent. Kim had even made a minor bit of history by answering a question from a reporter.

Then, as we all know, the U.S. delegation "walked."

The blame game looks likely to continue for months if not years.

Had Kim been overconfident that the Americans would be prepared to accept the dismantlement of his central nuclear complex at Yongbyon in the expectation that he could retain his secretive highly enriched uranium program?

Had National Security Adviser John Bolton, the last Washington Neo-con, torpedoed the summit by demanding a massive deal that had not been on the table in preliminary talks, and that he knew the North Koreans could not accept?

Did Trump, the self-described great negotiator, want to show how tough he was to supporters back home ― or had he finally bought into the pessimism of some in Washington, becoming convinced that Kim is not, in fact, prepared to offer up his "treasured sword?"

At this point, all is not clear. Is there any upside? Perhaps.