Some people’s actions simply defy belief. Like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel; or letting your child go rollerblading on the Long Island Expressway; or having so much to drink, you think a game of Russian roulette might be an amusing way to end the evening . . .

. . . or broadcasting to the world the exact opposite of what your boss has just announced as your country’s current stance on the Russia-Ukraine war.

No, I’m not kidding. And it blows my mind.

I can’t imagine, for example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov being stupid enough to do that to his boss. (That would be Vladimir Putin, of course.) But it is exactly what JD Vance did on Thursday when he told the Wall Street Journal that the option of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine was “on the table,” in addition to possible economic punishment, if a peace deal doesn’t guarantee Kyiv’s long-term independence.

“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage,” he told the Journal. [Jessie Yeung, CNN, February 14, 2025.]

Now, that in itself sounds okay — tough talk in favor of a victimized nation, aimed at a murderous dictator who has refused to negotiate a settlement of the war he illegally started three years ago. Fine.

Except that, just two days earlier, Vance’s boss — that would be Donald Trump, remember — had had a long one-on-one conversation with Putin, in which they supposedly agreed to begin immediate negotiations. Trump said he wants to “work together, very closely” with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, and even added that he hopes they will be “visiting each other’s nations.” [Steve Rosenberg, BBC, February 12, 2024.]

Right or wrong, Trump was obviously trying to sweet-talk Putin into being at least somewhat more reasonable. No mention was made (so far as we know), by either Trump or Putin, of any threat of recriminations or “punishment” if Putin failed to cooperate. And Trump has always maintained that U.S. troops would never be sent to Ukraine. So, where did Vance’s verbal diarrhea come from?

And more importantly, do we or do we not even have a Russia policy at this point? If so, it might be nice if Vance were privy to it, and if he were to understand that it’s his job to support it.

And if we don’t have one, I’d like to know why not. Because it seems to me it should take precedence over the whole plastic-versus-paper-drinking-straws issue, or whether to pave over the historic White House rose garden.

Am I right?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
2/15/25