Follow us on social

google cta
Lindsey Graham wants to force more Ukrainian men into the draft

Lindsey Graham wants to force more Ukrainian men into the draft

The war-hawking senator said 'we need more people in the line.' But 'we' doesn't mean 'he.'

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

Over 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died fighting Russia since the invasion, according to President Volodmyr Zelensky last month.

Never mind if that’s the actual number or not. For Lindsey Graham, it’s not enough.

Despite no evidence of victory on the horizon, the Republican senator is urging Ukrainian lawmakers to pass a mobilization bill that would force more Ukrainian citizens to be drafted into the military. Currently, men under 27 are exempted from the draft. Graham has a problem with that.

The Washington Post reports, “Ukraine’s new mobilization law, which has been under debate for months as the country faces a severe shortage of battle-ready troops, proposes lowering the country’s draft age to 25. Although citizens can voluntarily join the military starting at age 18, and men between 18 and 60 are banned from leaving the country under martial law, the draft has until now protected younger men — many of whom are students — from being forcibly mobilized.”

Graham told reporters, “I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe it’s at 27. You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27.”

“We need more people in the line,” he said.

How brave of Graham.

The New York Times reported in late January, “(A)fter nearly two years of bloody fighting, and with Ukraine once again in need of fresh troops to fend off a new Russian push, military leaders can no longer rely solely on enthusiasm. More men are avoiding military service, while calls to demobilize exhausted frontline soldiers have grown.”

“The change in mood has been particularly evident in the heated debates over a new mobilization bill that could lead to drafting up to 500,000 troops,” the Times noted. “The bill was introduced in Parliament last month — only to be quickly withdrawn for revision.”

It’s as if some Ukranians don’t want this bill. It’s almost as if many see no point in continuing to fight this war. But don’t tell Graham that. “No matter what we do, you should be fighting,” the Republican, who has zero skin in the game, insisted. “No matter what we do, you’re fighting for you.”

The Times continued, “The bill has catalyzed discontent in Ukrainian society about the army recruitment process, which has been denounced as riddled with corruption and increasingly aggressive. Many lawmakers have said that some of its provisions, like barring draft dodgers from buying real estate, could violate human rights.”

Graham didn’t address any of that. Paying attention to human rights violations is not exactly at the top of his to-do list. For the hawkish senator this is all about politics and ideology, which usually come first before all else.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that despite encouraging Ukraine’s young men to fight in a war many of them don’t believe in and don’t want to die in, Graham actually voted against the last Ukraine aid package because it did not include funding for U.S. border security.

So he was comfortable withholding money for a war over politics — a war he proclaims to believe in deeply — while urging citizens of a foreign country to march into oblivion.

When Graham was calling for U.S. military strikes on Iran in 2019, something Donald Trump refused to do at the time, the president rebuked the senator by telling reporters, “Ask Lindsey how did going into the Middle East, how did that work out? And how did going into Iraq work out?”

These are questions Graham would never ask. They are anathema to who he is and what he stands for. Risk assessment would just cloud the agenda. For Graham, engaging in all wars to achieve ideological and political goals is always the right decision despite the results, reality or tragic cost of the conflict.

Especially for the citizens of other countries.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attends a news briefing, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine March 18, 2024. REUTERS/Gleb Garanich

google cta
Analysis | Europe
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.