Amid escalating tensions over the Korean nuclear crisis, the antagonism between North Korea and the US has crippled almost all dialogues and led the entire region into a stalemate. However, it doesn't mean Pyongyang and Washington have turned each other away.

South Korean media outlet KBS World Radio reported the possible meeting of a high-ranking North Korean diplomat with a US former undersecretary of state during a forum in Sweden this month.

Although neither side has confirmed the sideline meeting, the story raises questions about whether Pyongyang and Washington are seeking to engage in two-way negotiations.

After North Korea dropped out of the Six-Party Talks in 2009, there have been only three unofficial conversations between North Korean high-ranking officials and their US counterparts. But both sides are believed to have maintained communication through other conduits, one of which is the "New York channel," represented by North Korea's UN diplomatic team to manage relations with Washington.

Although Pyongyang's fickleness continues to fuel the unpredictable nature of the nuclear crisis and is met by Washington's backlash, the two countries have maintained open communication. North Korea is actually eager to establish and maintain direct communication with the US, bypassing China and South Korea.

However, given the current circumstances, conversations between North Korea and the US will probably not yield game-changing results, because their respective policies are still irreconcilable. Pyongyang has no intention of compromising its ambitions to be a nuclear powerhouse, nor has Washington sought out a milder way to deal with the problem other than tough sanctions.

The purposes of the talks between Pyongyang and Washington, if any, are to avoid strategic miscalculation and reinforce risk control.

As for the US, there are no other efficient ways other than direct meetings to rule out Pyongyang resorting to extremism in response to the mounting pressures from economic sanctions. Washington hopes it can release messages directly in case Pyongyang's unpredictability materializes into unreasonable activities, which are among Washington's concerns.

There are other factors that are contributing to the dynamic of the Korean Peninsula. For example, Donald Trump, Republican nominee for the next US president, claims he is open to direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Actually, no matter who serves as the next US president, Pyongyang may be open to high-level conversations. But talks do not necessarily lead to an accord or settlement. Because there seems to be no wiggle room to maneuver over essential issues, any potential talks on the current circumstances would only scratch the surface.

Direct contact between Washington and Pyongyang raises some doubts as to whether multilateral communication mechanisms, especially the Six-Party Talks, will be marginalized. Some even speculate that, given Pyongyang's precariousness and Washington's double-dealing, if they make a secret deal, other stakeholders, in particular China, might be put in a passive position.

These doubts reflect a lack of coordination and trust between bilateral mechanisms and multilateral mechanisms in dealing with the Korean Peninsula. In fact, bilateral mechanisms are fit for the settlement of some particular problems that are major issues for two countries, such as the US and North Korea. But bilateral mechanisms, through which the US and North Korea might be able to achieve a preliminary agreement, should ultimately be incorporated in a multilateral orbit.

During the recent 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea, North Korea showed no signs of restraining their nuclear weapons program and hinted at a fifth nuke test. Provocations on the Korean Peninsula will push the already vulnerable regional situation to its tipping point. The trend requires more direct talks between major stakeholders. Crisis control should be a priority for the US and North Korea.

The author is a research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn Follow us on Twitter @GTopinion