Like, I dislike Vance as much as anyone, but I'm not sure why we are dunking on him for this comment. Conflicts are always ended with terms/negotiations. Post WW2 the Potsdam Conference was where the surrender terms were negotiated. He sucks, for sure but he seems kinda right here?
Well, for one thing the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan after Potsdam.
And surrender negotiations occurred and then on September 2nd on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay a formal signing took place.
The point being that Japan was fire bombed and nuked into oblivion before any “negotiations” took place. WWII surrender came only after the total collapse of the Axis Powers. Were there technically negotiations? Sure. But they weren’t what effectively ended the war.
More to the point, you don’t really need to give a guy like Vance any kind of space. He’s a fascist and would not provide you any benefit of the doubt himself.
The point is that he is correct in this instance that all conflicts end with diplomacy. There are literal novels worth of garbage that he's spewed in the last two years that are worth of criticism, but to focus on this throw away line isn't useful.