JD Vance made one Helluva good argument defending Trump's position on Ukraine, and of course, the 'little piggies' on social media went 'wee wee wee' all the way home. A historian, some Joshi guy we've never heard of, and, of course, Liz Cheney, who is sadly not included in this thread just yet, but we are watching his timeline like a hawk.
Granted, Mike Lee already dropped her, but we really, really, REALLY hope Vance does as well.
Vance decided to write one thread schooling them all, and it's glorious.
His post continues:
... "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.
2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.
Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.
But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting "appeasement" are people who aren't dealing with the reality on the ground.
3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.
The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.
4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it.
Can we say, 'Boom, there goes the dynamite,' without looking like total dorks? Eh, we are total dorks so we'll go ahead and leave it.
Vance ain't PLAYIN'.
Of course, there is more:
Vance replied:
His post continues:
... he believes the underlying dynamics *could* change in the future. He's welcome to make that argument.
See, look how polite Vance is.
Even welcomes Joshi to make another argument.
Stay tuned.
==========================================================================
Related:
Go Home, Bro, You're DRUNK: Adam Kinzinger's 'Trigger MAGA' Game BACKFIRES In a Most SPECTACULAR Way
========================================================================