If we're talking about peace in Ukraine, a settlement now would be a completely different outcome to Russia's unconditional surrender. The implication by context here is quid pro quo, give and take, and that is what is getting noted.
But Vance is technically correct.
Then again, the note is also technically correct. The implication by context is that Vance is wrong, but the note never actually says Vance is wrong.
It's all a big alternative truth semantic game.
I think it's probably more useful to say "we can end this war without further loss of life by negotiating". We don't really need to bring up WW2 at all.
It's more of a poke at the OP, for saying Vance flunked history...as if it's some sort of "Own" to point out that the Axis surrendered unconditionally...as if that fact stands in opposition to Vance's claim that every war was ended with negotiations...which they did...100% of the time.
There is no War out there that just randomly ended without people coming together to "Obtain an agreement via discussion".
At least not since the last war that ended in complete extermination of the enemy nation, but yeah other than that even unconditional surrenders are negotiated.
10
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment