WHOA, He Ain't PLAYIN'! JD Vance Takes Whiners SCREECHING About His Ukraine Post APART in EPIC Thread

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.

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture… https://t.co/w7OQemI3R7
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 21, 2025

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.

Behind the tough guy language, there is no argument here. What's the fire advantage of the respective parties conflict? Manpower? How might that change with further NATO action, and how are you proposing to change it?

As it turns out, I'm right and Joshi is wrong, though maybe…
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 21, 2025

His post continues: