Washington elites are pushing for America to “maximize” its obligations to Ukraine—never mind that the so-called obligations were never more than squishy diplomatic promises, not a blank check for endless U.S. involvement in a foreign war. Washington’s Ukraine “Obligation” Myth: More Spin Than Substance Americans have been told for years that we owe Ukraine nearly limitless support, thanks to some “obligation” cooked up in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Here’s the reality: the U.S. promised to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and to wag a finger at anyone who threatened it with nukes, but that’s where it stopped. There’s zero legal requirement for U.S. troops, weapons, or billions in aid. In fact, the agreement carefully avoided any NATO-style mutual defense language. The average American, already overtaxed and struggling with inflation, should ask: who benefits from pretending we’re on the hook for Ukraine’s never-ending war tab? It’s not the American people. It’s the same old D.C. crowd, their defense contractor pals, and foreign policy hawks who never met a foreign entanglement they didn’t love—so long as someone else’s son or daughter is sent to fight it. The “maximizing obligations” crowd is banking on the public not reading the fine print. But experts and legal scholars agree: the Budapest Memorandum was never a war guarantee, and anyone claiming otherwise is selling snake oil. Even the architects of America’s foreign policy admit, when pressed, that Ukraine is not covered by any treaty requiring U.S. intervention or unlimited aid. Policy Whiplash: The U.S. Can’t Decide What It Wants Recent months have been a masterclass in government confusion. The Trump administration suspended military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine in March—only to restore it days later after internal squabbling and arm-twisting from allies. Then, in July, the Pentagon abruptly halted shipments of crucial weapons, including Patriots and artillery shells, leaving Ukraine exposed just as Russia unleashed its heaviest aerial attack yet. By the following week, there were signals of restarting “some” aid, but nobody in Kyiv—or Congress—actually knew what would happen next. It’s a mess. And yet the same people who demand “maximized” obligations can’t define what that means or how much more they want from U.S. taxpayers. On July 31, Europe could hand over €210 billion to Vladimir Putin. Yes, you read that right. Frozen Russian assets, meant to hold the Kremlin accountable for invading Ukraine, could go back in Moscow — and the clock is ticking. @Jziskina explains what needs to be done. pic.twitter.com/Xpwk5IwIQi — Razom for Ukraine (@razomforukraine) June 18, 2025 This flip-flopping has European leaders in a panic. They’re suddenly realizing that maybe, just maybe, they’ll have to step up and spend their own euros instead of relying on Uncle Sam’s endless credit card. America’s credibility, they say, is at stake. But maybe what’s really at stake is the D.C. gravy train, which now finds itself on a bumpy track as voters demand accountability—and a return to constitutional principles, not foreign quagmires. Realists vs. The Intervention-Industrial Complex On one side, the so-called “interventionists” insist that propping up Ukraine is essential to defending the “international order.” On the other, the realists—and anyone with a shred of common sense—point out that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president or unelected bureaucrats, the power to declare war and appropriate funds. The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and it sure doesn’t override American law or the will of the people. As the debate rages, the Biden-era fantasy of blank checks is colliding with economic reality and the hard limits of U.S. interests. We need more than long-range missiles, sophisticated weapons and air defense. Justice means money – €300bn in frozen russian assets must go to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/Z6SKzicLDK — Kira Rudik (@kiraincongress) June 16, 2025 Meanwhile, the real-world consequences of this elite confusion are dire. Ukraine’s battlefield position is weakening without steady aid, European allies are eyeing new defense taxes, and Russia is emboldened by the spectacle of Western disunity. But here’s the kicker: none of this was inevitable. The U.S. could have stuck to its founding principles—avoid foreign entanglements, defend our own borders, and put America first. Instead, we’re treated to lectures about “maximizing” obligations that never legally existed, all while American families pay the price at the pump, the grocery store, and on tax day. Sources: Can Ukraine Fight Without U.S. Aid? Seven Questions to Ask Trump, Ukraine Support, and Europe’s Allies In Hindsight: The U.S. Pivot on Ukraine and Shifting Security Council Dynamics Trump, Ukraine, Russia, and the Aid War