• The liberal Kyunghyang Shinmun put an optimistic spin on the sudden announcement that the US was cancelling its August joint military exercises with South Korea at the North’s insistence: “One apparent factor is that the suspension of the ROK-US combined military exercises can encourage denuclearization. We also cannot ignore the fact that North Korea strongly demands it. It is common sense to refrain from military actions that provoke the opponent in a negotiation. North Korea has suspended nuclear tests and the test launch of ballistic missiles for six months, and we need to take measures in response to such actions. In addition, North Korea expressed their ‘good will’ several times […], but the U.S. has failed to take a single action in response.“
• The Hankyoreh, another liberal paper, offered a similar silver-lining to the US setting aside its initial demands for complete, verifiable irreversible denuclearization (CVID) during negotiations: “It can be said that the greatest triumph of the North Korea-US summit on June 12 was the fact that Trump and Kim personally signed a joint statement that contains the promise of complete denuclearization and a guarantee of regime security. Along with this, the two leaders agreed to ‘establish new US-DPRK relations.’ The very fact that a joint statement under the names of Trump and Kim contained these terms should be enough for the summit to go down as a success.” In response to the news that denuclearization was expected to take two and a half years or longer, the Hankyoreh emphasized that the timeline was consistent with many analysts’ predictions of what a realistic schedule would be: “The important thing is straying away from normative and impractical demands. It is much more critical to move forward with a definite step-by-step process of denuclearization based on trust between North Korea and the US. From that perspective, it is not right to attack and disparage the North Korea-US summit in Singapore for not having gotten any results.“
• Following an initial warm review of the summit, the liberal Korea Times condemned President Trump’s cancelation of the joint military exercises and abandonment of the CVID: “the CVID formula should not have been compromised under any circumstances.”
• The Korea Herald was more measured in its response to the summit’s lackluster outcome: “The summit fell short of expectations of a road map for denuclearization, but the issue of dismantling the North Korean nuclear program and assuring the security of its regime […] are as difficult to solve as a tangled knot. […] The summit in Singapore is just a beginning. The North Korean nuclear issue cannot be solved at a single stroke.” The Herald warned, however, that South Korea’s alliance with the US must remain strong and that economic assistance to the North must not be given “blindly.” Following the cancellation of the joint military exercises, the Korea Herald swiftly condemned the development: “a drastic change to the status of the US forces in South Korea should never be made before achieving the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the North’s nuclear capability and a significant reduction in threat from the North’s conventional forces.”
• The conservative Dong-A Ilbo consistently called for caution in dealing with North Korea in its editorials. The Dong-A Ilbo pointed out that Washington’s interest in denuclearizing North Korea may end up on the “back burner” in favor of limiting the country’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) technology, which is a more direct threat to the US: “[W]e need to keep our eyes wide open to the follow-up meeting between Pyongyang and Washington.” This concern was repeated after the cancellation of the joint military exercises: “North Korea is already using current developments in its offensive towards the South, as evidenced by the North’s delegate taking a high-handed attitude during the recent inter-Korean military talks. […] We must not forget that now is the time to strive to solidify our national defense.” The Dong-A Ilbo further called for the international community to be “careful” in easing economic sanctions against North Korea to avoid forfeiting its primary bargaining chip: “If international sanctions against the North, which is the essence that changed North Korea and the only method, is alleviated when we have not even started shoveling, the driving force of denuclearization itself is bound to become weak.“
• The JoongAng Daily, another conservative paper, aired its frustration at the North’s “eagerness” in calling for the South to participate in arms reduction despite the slow pace of denuclearization: “[R]econciliation and dialogue are important. But it can’t outpace the timetable of denuclearization.” The JoongAng also took aim at South Korean officials for leaving the public in the dark despite the concerning developments: “[O]ur defense and foreign ministers do not address growing public anxiety. […] If the government reacts in such shadowy ways, the peace process will face a strong backlash. President Moon must vow to safeguard our security. Moon must explain what’s going on and seek the public’s understanding and support.” Upon hearing of the cancellation of the joint exercises, the JoongAng warned: “The two governments must not forget that, if they get it wrong this time, distrust in Washington and Pyongyang will augment, and the argument for South Korea going nuclear may gain ground.“
• The conservative Chosun Ilbo had strong words for President Trump’s apparent use of the summit for his own political agenda without any regard for South Korea’s security: “The agreement signed by Trump and Kim […] came as a shock, which only got worse as Trump rambled on during the ensuing press conference. The sole goal of this summit was the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and the key gauge would have been a commitment to doing it “completely, verifiably and irreversibly” and a date to do it by — for example 2020, when Trump’s term ends” The Chosun had pointed critique of the cancellation of the  joint military exercises: “The only time they were halted was back in 1992, to coax the North into scrapping its nuclear program, and everyone knows how successful that was.“

CHINA
Following the US-DPRK summit, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters that China welcomed the “history making” summit and would continue to play a constructive role in the building peace in the Korean Peninsula. Wang Yi stated that “China hopes that the leaders of the DPRK and the US will remove disruptions, build mutual trust, overcome obstacles, and reach basic consensus on and take substantive steps towards promoting and realizing the denuclearization and establishing the peace mechanism of the Peninsula.” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang reiterated Chinese optimism following the meeting and highlighted China’s role in suggesting the “dual track approach”: “The facts have proven that the China-proposed ‘suspension for suspension’ initiative has been materialized and now the situation is also moving forward in the direction of the ‘dual-track’ approach.” When questioned about the lifting of international sanctions on North Korea, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters that while China strictly followed the DPRK related resolutions, it firmly believed that “sanction itself is not the end, and the Security Council’s actions should support and conform to the diplomatic dialogue and the endeavour for the denuclearization of the Peninsula at this point, and promote the political settlement of the Peninsula issue.” At a press conference after his meeting with Chairman Kim on June 19, 2018, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated China’s support for North Korea: “No matter how the international and regional situations change, the firm stance of the CPC and the Chinese government on consolidating and developing the relations with the DPRK remains unchanged, the Chinese people’s friendship with the DPRK people remains unchanged, and China’s support for the socialist DPRK remains unchanged.”

• The state-directed China Daily expressed cautious hope that the summit would become the “the defining moment in history it was being billed as.” “While no one should expect the summit to have ironed out all the differences and erased the deep-seated mistrust between the two long-time foes, it has ignited hopes that they will be finally able to put an end to their hostility and that the long-standing peninsula issues can finally be resolved. These hopes should not be extinguished,” the editorial read.
• The nationalist Global Times hailed the summit as evidence that new norms in international relations are taking hold: “Mutual respect for others’ core interest and care for each other’s major concerns is now at the top of global political rules.” The Times pointed to North Korea’s acts of apparent goodwill as evidence for this: “To further promote denuclearization on the Peninsula, it is necessary to keep injecting momentum into the process. Boosting North Korea’s enthusiasm is crucial. Washington used to be very skeptical about Pyongyang, but this year, North Korea has been very consistent. It has taken unilateral steps to release three US hostages and demolished its nuclear test site. It is time to consider alleviating sanctions against Pyongyang.“
• Zhang Yun, associate professor at National Niigata University in Japan and senior fellow at the Institute of Advanced Area Studies and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University, suggested that “US President Donald Trump deserves the biggest applause for the very occurrence of the summit” in his op-ed for The Global Times. Zhang explained that Trump’s “unique style of doing things” allowed him to act despite domestic bipartisan consensus against engaging so cordially with North Korea.
• Coverage of the summit by the independent South China Morning Post included an article that surveyed Chinese analysts for their takeaways. The Post concluded that “[a]lthough Beijing was not officially involved in the landmark talks, China’s influence over the reclusive North Korean regime had still been felt.“

JAPAN
From Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe thanked President Trump for raising the abduction issue in his talks with Chairman Kim and described the summit as “a step in a comprehensive resolution.” Foreign Minister Taro Kono, in an interview with national public broadcasting organization NHK, was optimistic that the North would meet its end of the bargain, explaining that, “In North Korea, a promise of the supreme leader has special significance, especially if given in a written form. The domestic announcement of full denuclearization is also important. I think that in a situation like this, North Korea will stick to its promise.”

• The progressive Asahi Shimbun expressed its support for the “historic” summit, but noted that North Korea still has a “long way to go” before it can be considered an “honored member of the global community,” namely regarding actual follow through on denuclearization and improving human rights conditions, which the Asahi said were not adequately addressed by the summit. The Asahi concluded that “Japan must strive to work closer with China, South Korea and Russia and explore means for constructive engagement with North Korea.”
• The Japan Times was cynical in its response to the summit: “It was a historic meeting, if by “historic” we mean that it was the first meeting of a sitting president of the United States and a North Korean leader. Apart from that very particular definition, it was exceptionally ordinary, yielding a document that offered nothing new. By every measure the encounter was notable more for what it did not do, rather than what it did.” The Times also called for the government to maintain pressure on North Korea until the abduction issue is solved. The Japan Times also reported that a government source claimed a summit between Abe and Kim later this year is in the works.
• In an op-ed for The Japan Times, former ambassador Masamichi Hanabusa suggested that expectations for resolution of the abduction issue needed to be tempered: “With regard to the so-called abduction issue, at the time of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visit to Pyongyang in September 2002, North Korea acknowledged the issue and apologized for it at the government level. Bearing this in mind, it is important for Japan to solve this issue in as quiet and moderate a fashion as possible in the direction of satisfying the expectations of the related families. The Japanese people need to restrain their emotional reactions, so that they will not end up reducing the totality of the Japan-North Korea relationship to the single issue of abduction.”
• The Mainichi Shimbun expressed its disappointment in the summit in two editorials as “more was expected” from the summit: “[W]e are worried about the lack of thoroughness on the part of the Trump administration. In the post-summit press conference, President Trump stressed his trust of Chairman Kim, but offered no concrete reason for that. Moreover, the statement made no mention of verification, the most important element in denuclearization. We are also left in the dark over how the issue concerning Japanese victims of North Korean abduction will be settled,” the first explained. The second characterized the summit as little more than “a piece of political theater.” The Mainichi called for the Abe administration to act transparently in its pursuit of normalized relations with North Korea as well: “Improvements in Tokyo’s ties with Pyongyang are vital for Japan’s security. Therefore, the Abe administration should display its enthusiasm about the issue by, for example, holding a meeting of the leaders of ruling and opposition parties in an effort to share the government’s policy on North Korea.“
• The Yomiuri Shimbun, a conservative paper, called on its government to cooperate with the US and South Korea, but also argued that “To realize denuclearization, it is vital for North Korea to declare its nuclear arms, nuclear materials and related facilities and then abandon them, which will be followed by verification by such organizations as the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is essential to hammer out a roadmap specifying concrete steps and deadlines and press Pyongyang to implement it.“

INDIA
In a statement, India’s Ministry of External Affairs offered these kind words for the summit, “India welcomes the United States-DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Summit held in Singapore. This is a positive development. India has always supported all efforts to bring about peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy,” while including a thinly veiled reference to Pakistan’s ties to North Korea: “We also hope that the resolution of the Korean Peninsula issue will take into account and address our concerns about proliferation linkages extending to India’s neighbourhood.”

• Left-leaning newspaper The Hindu commended the two leaders for the summit’s success: “The two whimsical leaders deserve full credit for this thaw in relations, given the decades of hostility and the quick diplomacy that pulled the Korean peninsula back from the brink of war. [..B]eing unpredictable and impulsive, Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim must also stare down hardline elements in their respective administrations. This bold beginning must not be wasted.“
• In an editorial, the liberal Hindustan Times echoed concerns that the summit will not result in any substantive change: “It is welcome that there will be more talks between the US and North Korea as this will surely reduce the chances of a nuclear confrontation and help to ease the isolation of the regime in Pyongyang, the Trump administration must do much more to tie the North Korean leadership to a verifiable, time-bound and irreversible programme for denuclearisation. Without that, the summit in Singapore could go down in history as just a grand photo-op.”
• Vishnu Prakash, a former diplomat and foreign affairs analyst for the Hindustan Times, was enthusiastic in his review of the summit: “Sceptics would aver that Kim managed to sell Trump a lemon, but that may be somewhat uncharitable. Trump was bold enough to accept a realistic arrangement. Whether or not it will hold, only time will tell. The portends, however, look positive!“
• In his analysis for The Indian Express, C. Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, was similarly optimistic that “Trump and Kim may have begun to move the Korean Peninsula into uncharted but hopefully calmer waters” given their commitment to three guiding principles in the Singapore summit statement and accompanying political gestures of goodwill.
• Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Vice Chancellor, Ashoka University, in New Delhi, also provided insight in The Indian Express, but focused his attention on making sense of Trump’s “disruptions” in his foreign policy more broadly, as exemplified by his behavior at the G7 and Singapore summits: “Trump’s three disruptions – the end of the West, the accommodation with authoritarian great power rivals and therefore signalling the end of Pax Americana, and his attack on globalisation – have an odd coherence to them. The traditional foreign policy establishment thought it could hold on to these ideas without paying the price for the pathologies that went with them: Western privilege, imperial overreach, and inequality.“

RUSSIA
During a press conference at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit two days before the Singapore summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his country’s support for the event and highlighted China’s role in its fruition: “Russia welcomes the upcoming US-North Korean summit and points to China’s great contribution to resolving the Korean Peninsula crisis.” In a scheduled press conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded to questions about the summit “The very fact of a direct contact taking place between the leaders of the United States and the DPRK deserves support. Indeed, the Russian-Chinese road map, which was put together a little less than a year ago, called for an end to bellicose rhetoric and provocative actions on both sides at its first stage, and establishing direct contact and the beginning of a discussion of all the issues and concerns that both parties have, at its second. It appears that Washington and Pyongyang are moving precisely towards this end.” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria  Zakharova expressed Russia’s support for the easing of economic sanctions against North Korea in light of the positive developments: “We are convinced that one of the major components in the normalisation process in the region can and should be modification the UN Security Council sanctions regime against North Korea, particularly given that  respective sanction resolutions have repeatedly reaffirmed the Security Council’s commitment to this kind of adjustment, taking into account progress in the situation.” However, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov later clarified that Russia would not pursue lifting the sanctions until “the situation on the Korean Peninsula develops in a positive direction.”