Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky

Diplomacy Watch: Lindsey Graham pushing new sanctions on Russia

A minerals deal was signed without commitments to Kyiv on investments, security

Reporting | QiOSK

As diplomatic frustrations mount, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to come down hard on Russia — with a sanctions bill that now has bipartisan support in the Senate.

The bill punishes Russia if it “refuses to negotiate a peace agreement with Ukraine, violates any such agreement, or initiates another military invasion of Ukraine.” It also includes a 500% tariff on imported goods from Russian oil buyers.

“Most members of the Senate believe that Putin has been resistant to finding a negotiated solution to the war, and has been brazen and barbaric in his actions against Ukraine,” Graham explained. “By co-sponsoring this bill I think a senator is making a pretty clear statement that they see Russia as the greatest offender here.”

Graham said Wednesday that he had enough votes to pass the legislation in the Senate, including support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) is leading a House companion bill, but Punchbowl News reported that support for it remains limited.

When asked by the WSJ when the bill would be brought up for a vote, Graham said “we’re talking weeks.”

“It’s clear to me — and I think it’s becoming clear to President Trump — that the Russians are playing games,” Graham said. According to Graham’s legislative office, the legislation will likely target China, Russia and Iran economies the most.

Indeed, Trump did say a recent attack by Russia on Ukraine made him skeptical of Russia’s diplomatic intentions. "It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping me along,” he said on Saturday.

In an attempt to force hands, Rubio asked Tuesday for “concrete proposals” from both Russia and Ukraine as to how to resolve the conflict — warning that the U.S. would “step back as a mediator in this process” if progress was not made in due time.

Despite these hiccups, the diplomatic rubber has seemingly hit the road amid the Trump administration’s ultimatums.

Indeed, a minerals deal, a major diplomatic development, has been signed between the U.S. and Ukraine. And, as part of this minerals deal, a Ukraine-U.S. Reconstruction Investment Fund has also been established.

Experts broke down the minerals deal developments for RS. “The ratified minerals deal does not recognize prior U.S. assistance as counting toward the joint investment fund. It is a framework to ensure Ukrainian compensation for any future U.S. aid,” Mark Episkopos, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’s Eurasia Program, explained.

“This, along with the potential presence of American companies on the ground in Ukraine, may become one of several smaller assurances with the other one being Ukraine’s path to EU membership — that together can replace the kinds of hard security guarantees that Kyiv wants but is highly unlikely to get from the White House,” Episkopos said.

“No less importantly, this framework for long-term cooperation reassures Ukraine that it will not be financially abandoned whenever the war ends and thus provides Kyiv with additional incentives to engage constructively with the US-brokered peace initiative.”

The joint investment fund, however, doesn’t force any commitments on the U.S. in terms of financial investments or security assistance.

“It is vital to note that this agreement does not commit the U.S. government to invest in Ukraine; and to judge by the present profitability of minerals extraction in the world, it is not certain that private investors will see major benefits from doing so,” Anatol Lieven, Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in RS yesterday.

“This [is] not just a financial arrangement. This is a bonding between two countries that will make a difference for a nation, certainly in Ukraine's situation, where they have a friend,” State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said of the deal. “And the rest of the world will notice that when you have a friend like the United States. And when we are in business with you and in your nation, it creates a stronger national security…for everyone involved.”

In other Ukraine war news this week:

Following the minerals deal signing, the Trump administration has sent Ukraine $50 million in military aid, according to the Times — the first instance of military assistance sent by the Trump administration to Kyiv.

Despite persistent talks of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, the Times reports that Europe, collectively, would struggle to gather 25,000 troops for a "deterrence" force for the cause due to lack of funds and troops alike. In response, Lithuania’s defence minister Dovile Sakaliene reportedly told counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

According to Business Insider, the Security Service of Ukraine said it conducted a drone strike on the Murom Instrument-Building plant, a defense manufacturing plant in Russia east of Moscow, on Tuesday night, damaging the facility.

From State Department Press Briefing on May 1

During the State Department press briefing on May 1st, Spokesperson Tammy Bruce explained the logic behind Rubio’s request Tuesday for diplomatic proposals from both Ukraine and Russia. Rubio had said the U.S. would “step back as a mediator” if diplomatic processes did not keep a reasonable pace.

“The methodology of how we contribute to [Russia-Ukraine diplomacy] will change in that we will not be the mediators…and the nature of how this would change is we would not we certainly were still committed to it, and we'll help and do what we can,” Bruce explained.

“But we are not going to fly around the world at the drop of a hat to mediate meetings. That it is now between the two parties [Ukraine and Russia], and…now is the time that they need to present and develop concrete ideas about how this conflict is going to end. It's going to be up to them.”


Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Reporting | QiOSK
Nato Summit Trump
Top photo credit: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump, at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague (NATO/Flickr)

Did Trump just dump the Ukraine War into the Europeans' lap?

Europe

The aerial war between Israel and Iran over the past two weeks sucked most of the world’s attention away from the war in Ukraine.

The Hague NATO Summit confirms that President Donald Trump now sees paying for the war as Europe’s problem. It’s less clear that he will have the patience to keep pushing for peace.

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

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.