In a recent appearance on "Meet the Press," former military journalist JD Vance stumbled into a history blunder while discussing President Trump’s new strategy to resolve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

During his interview with Kristen Welker, Vance passionately defended Trump’s approach, which pivots away from previously advocated sanctions and ceasefire demands against Russia's Vladimir Putin. His argument? Historical conflicts, like World War II and World War I, are typically resolved through negotiation.

However, Vance's statement quickly backfired, as fellow historians—and social media users—pointed out that World War II actually concluded with the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, not through negotiation. One sharp-tongued critic quipped, "Vance says WWII ended in negotiation—someone tell that to Hiroshima!" Another user noted, "World War II ended with the exact opposite of a negotiation."

The conversation took a serious turn when Welker raised the sensitive topic of territorial concessions, which Ukraine would likely have to accept to end the war. President Volodymyr Zelensky has categorically rejected the notion of conceding any Ukrainian territory to Russia.

In his response, Vance hesitated to address the issue directly but suggested that Ukrainians should determine their own borders. He went on to imply that finding a 'middle ground' is essential for settling conflicts: "If Ukrainians are willing to say something on territory that brings the conflict to a close, we’re not going to stop them... because it’s not our country."

Vance's office has yet to comment on this historical faux pas, but the emphasis on mediation—along with the suggestion that Ukraine might need to make sacrifices—starkly contrasts with Trump’s previously hardline stance.

This incident not only reflects a significant misunderstanding of history but also raises important questions about the future of US involvement in conflict resolution.