This is a masterclass in bad-faith historical revisionism and dangerous minimization. Coming from a Russian troll named “Joe Blank” who likes to pen drawings of Roger Waters it’s not surprising although spectacularly tasteless especially given the tragic events of last night’s brutal attack on Kyiv. Let’s shred this Kremlin nonsense point by point.First, calling the 1994 Budapest Memorandum mere ‘assurances’ not ‘guarantees’ is a pedantic dodge. Yes, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum used ‘assurances’ language because it was a political commitment tied to Ukraine surrendering the world’s 3rd-largest nuclear arsenal. But it wasn’t some meaningless napkin note. It explicitly reaffirmed commitments to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; to refrain from the threat or use of force against its territorial integrity; and to avoid economic coercion. Russia violated every single one of those. Pretending the only obligation was ‘voting at the UNSC’ is a lie — that’s just one narrow clause (point 4) limited to nuclear aggression scenarios anyway.We did vote and support resolutions, but the US and UK also went far beyond that with billions in aid, sanctions, and military support precisely because the spirit of the deal — and the trust Ukraine placed in the West to give up its nukes — was shredded by Putin. Joe Blank acts like Ukraine got ‘paid off’ with Clinton bonus money and should have known better. Reality: This was part of a hard-negotiated package (Trilateral Statement + Nunn-Lugar funding) to secure Ukraine’s denuclearization for global safety. Ukraine wasn’t stupid; it was bargaining from a position of inherited Soviet weapons it couldn’t safely maintain long-term. Dismissing solemn signed commitments as ‘not to be taken seriously’ because ‘they could READ’ is cynical trash that rewards nuclear blackmail.This isn’t about blind blank-check support for endless war. It’s about basic consistency. If major powers can rip up security assurances after a country voluntarily disarms, why would any nation ever trust the West again on non-proliferation? North Korea, Iran, and others are watching. Blank’s ‘end obligation’ take isn’t realism — it’s surrender theater that tells the world American words are worthless the moment a bully shows up.My point stands: Promises matter, or they don’t. Cherry-picking one clause while ignoring Russia’s serial violations and the broader context is weak apologetics for inaction. The Budapest deal was always limited, but it wasn’t zero. Treating it as such erodes any moral or strategic credibility we have left.”joe blank (@therevjoeblank)Why? We fulfilled out security “assurances” (not “guarantees”) to their fullest, as the only assurance we made to Ukraine in the event of an attack would be to vote in Ukraine’s favor at the UN Security Council. We did in 2014 and 2022. End obligation. It’s not a defense treaty.—
https://x.com/therevjoeblank/status/2073937445075247536
