Follow us on social

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

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 “The bill was introduced in Parliament last month — only to be quickly withdrawn for revision.”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.


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

Analysis | Europe
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less

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.