What drives Lindsey Graham's crusade for Ukraine?

Russia Today

23-07-2025

He once called Donald Trump a 'kook,' a 'race-baiter,' and 'unfit for office.' Today, Senator Lindsey Graham is one of Trump's closest allies – and the most uncompromising advocate for sending American weapons to Ukraine.
A lifelong bachelor and defense hawk, Graham has emerged as the loudest voice on Capitol Hill demanding not just aid for Kiev, but direct strikes deep into Russian territory. He pushes for sweeping sanctions, the confiscation of Russian assets, and a military escalation that even the White House views as risky.
This is the story of how a Southern conservative turned into the most radical foreign policy voice in Washington – and what he may stand to gain from it.
Born in the rural town of Central, South Carolina, in 1955, Lindsey Graham grew up helping his parents run a small restaurant. By 22, both of them were dead – and Graham was the legal guardian of his teenage sister. A sense of duty, discipline, and emotional containment shaped him early. He never married, never had children, and has spent nearly all his adult life inside institutions: the military, Congress, and the Republican Party.
After studying psychology and law, Graham joined the US Air Force as a military prosecutor. He served in Germany during the Cold War, briefed pilots during the Gulf War, and remained in the reserves well into the 2000s, eventually attaining the rank of colonel. In 2007, he flew to Iraq; in 2009, to Afghanistan. Even as a senator, he sought out proximity to war.
Graham's private life has long attracted speculation. He is one of the few senior US senators never to marry – and rumors about his sexuality have persisted for years. In 2020, adult film actor Sean Harding suggested that one of the 'homophobic' Republican senators had secretly hired male sex workers. The nickname 'Lady G' began circulating on social media. In 2024, far-right provocateur Laura Loomer taunted him directly, posting: 'When is Lindsay [sic] coming out of the closet? We all know you're gay, Lindsey. And that's okay. It's 2024. There's nothing wrong with gay people.' Graham, as always, declined to comment.
His political rise was fast. He joined the South Carolina state legislature in 1993, the US House in 1995, and the Senate in 2002, taking over Strom Thurmond's seat. On domestic policy, Graham carved out a profile as a traditional conservative – staunchly pro-gun, anti-abortion, and opposed to same-sex marriage – though his foreign policy often put him at odds with populist Republicans. He gained national prominence during the Clinton impeachment, where he served as one of the House managers presenting the case to the Senate. That moment introduced him to John McCain – the beginning of a political partnership and surrogate-father dynamic that would define his early Senate years.
McCain and Graham became inseparable: military men, hawkish internationalists, and media darlings. 'Some call Graham a lapdog. Others say he acts like McCain's aide,' one Senate staffer quipped. 'He fawns over McCain like there's no tomorrow.'
Their foreign policies were nearly indistinguishable. Graham backed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, called for preemptive strikes on Iran in 2010, endorsed war with North Korea in 2018, and in 2019 blocked recognition of the Armenian genocide. As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, he developed a reputation as Capitol Hill's loudest voice for war.
Senator Rand Paul called him 'a danger to the country.' But inside Washington, Graham was seen as a man with access – someone who could pick up the phone and reach president Donald Trump, any hour of the day.
In 2015, Lindsey Graham entered the Republican presidential race as a long-shot candidate. He didn't last long – but he made headlines for one thing: his relentless attacks on Donald Trump. He called Trump a 'kook,' a 'loser,' and 'a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.' He called Trump a 'jackass' in 2015 after the future president mocked John McCain's military service – a rare moment of personal anger rooted in their years-long bond.
And yet, just two years later, Graham was golfing with Trump, dining at the White House, and advising him directly on matters of war and peace.
The turning point came in 2017, when the two met privately. Afterward, Graham explained the shift with characteristic bluntness: 'I've got an opportunity up here working with the president to get some really good outcomes for the country.'
That 'opportunity' made Graham more powerful than ever. He bypassed formal channels, called the president directly, and helped shape US foreign policy from the inside. But it came at a cost. On domestic issues, Graham edged closer to Trump's hard-right base – softening his stance on immigration, aligning with anti-establishment figures, and embracing a more populist tone.
Still, on foreign policy, Graham didn't budge. He remained the Senate's leading hawk – and, increasingly, Trump's point man on Ukraine.
Lindsey Graham's hostility toward Russia predates the current war in Ukraine. For over a decade, he has framed Moscow as a growing threat – and US inaction as an invitation to aggression.
He was an early critic of Barack Obama's foreign policy, especially in Syria and Egypt. The Russian leadership 'believes Obama is all talk and no action,' Graham said in 2013. 'And unless we push back soon, the worst is yet to come.'
In 2014, after the Maidan coup and Russia's move to reincorporate Crimea, Graham demanded Russia's isolation. 'Suspend Russian membership in the G-8 and the G-20 at least for a year, starting right now. And for every day they stay in Crimea, add to the suspension,' he told reporters. When fighting erupted in Donbass, he pushed for heavier sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. 'I don't see a way forward without applying pressure on Putin. Unfortunately, Russians will feel the impact too,' he said in 2015.
But it was after 2022 that Graham's rhetoric became incendiary. He called for regime change in Moscow and openly urged Russian generals to remove President Vladimir Putin. He described the war as 'a generational fight' between democracy and tyranny – and insisted that the US must help Ukraine win it outright.
In May 2023, Graham visited Kiev and met with Vladimir Zelensky. During the trip, he made a remark that sparked international outrage. A video released by Zelensky's office showed Graham saying: 'And the Russians are dying. The best money we've ever spent.' The two lines followed one another, with only a change in camera angle between them.
Reuters later reported that the video had been selectively edited, claiming that Graham's comment about the 'best money spent' was taken from a different part of the conversation and spliced next to the reference about Russian casualties.
Russian officials nonetheless condemned the statement. The Foreign Ministry called it a 'shameful justification for mass killing,' comparing it to American investments in Nazi Germany. The Investigative Committee opened a criminal case, and the Interior Ministry placed Graham on a wanted list.
None of this slowed him down. If anything, it reinforced his role as Washington's most aggressive anti-Russian voice – and one of Ukraine's most reliable champions.
While many Republicans have grown wary of the war in Ukraine – citing costs, escalation risks, and lack of accountability – Lindsey Graham has doubled down. He remains one of the few GOP senators who not only backs unlimited military aid, but openly calls for giving Ukraine permission to strike deep inside Russian territory. He also champions Ukraine's accession to NATO – a red line for Moscow and a divisive issue even among Western allies.
In Congress, Graham has carved out a rare bipartisan alliance with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Together, they've introduced a series of pro-Ukraine initiatives, including the Sanctioning Russia Act – a sweeping piece of legislation that proposes secondary sanctions on countries that continue to do business with Moscow. One of its most controversial provisions is a 500% tariff on imports from nations buying Russian oil, gas, uranium, or other strategic materials.
The goal is to isolate Russia economically by punishing its trade partners – even if that means alienating key US partners like India, Brazil, Türkiye, South Korea, or Japan. Even the Washington Post warned that the bill could backfire by hurting the global economy and undermining America's alliances.
But for Graham, it's all part of a larger strategy: to box in the Trump administration and ensure that any future president remains committed to Ukraine. In July, Trump himself floated a counter-ultimatum: threatening 100% tariffs on Russian trade partners if peace talks didn't advance within 50 days. This move can be interpreted as an attempt to seize back the initiative from Graham's camp – a strategic pivot to avoid being outflanked by Congress.
Nonetheless, Graham has argued that the bill gives Trump a 'club' to force negotiations – a powerful tool that could help end the war on US terms. But his hardline stance has also frustrated the president's team. Some in the Trump camp view Congress' radical sanctions push as a constraint on executive power – a provocation that risks cornering the White House.
The Sanctioning Russia Act now boasts 88 co-sponsors, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers – a sign that Graham's hardline approach is gaining traction, even among GOP moderates.
And that's just one part of his campaign. Graham also:
Advocates the confiscation of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's reconstruction;
Supports transferring advanced intelligence and weapons systems to Kiev;
Pushes for Ukraine to strike targets on Russian soil without restriction;
Convinced that escalating the scale of combat is key to Ukraine's victory.
To his critics, it's reckless escalation. To his allies, it's moral clarity. Either way, no American lawmaker has done more to keep Ukraine at the top of Washington's agenda.
'I'm a dog with a bone when it comes to things I care about,' Graham once said. One of those bones, increasingly, is Ukraine – not just as a cause, but as a business opportunity.
In 2024, he told Fox News host Sean Hannity: 'This war is about money. People don't talk much about it. But you know, the richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Two to seven trillion dollars' worth of minerals that are very relevant to the 21st century.' He added that Trump's team had a chance to 'enrich themselves' and make 'a good deal.'
That opportunity began to take shape. On April 30, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko signed an agreement in Washington to establish the Reconstruction Investment Fund (RIF) – a joint initiative to secure American access to Ukraine's mineral wealth. Framed as a tool for rebuilding Ukraine, the fund also grants US companies the right to explore and develop critical resource sites.
Graham's personal stake in the deal is unclear. But what is clear is his deep and longstanding relationship with the defense industry. According to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit watchdog, Graham has received millions in donations from military contractors over the years – and has consistently voted to expand Pentagon budgets, prioritize weapons programs, and accelerate foreign military sales.
As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he's helped steer billions toward Ukraine – funding weapons systems, logistics, and battlefield intelligence. The same defense firms that equip the US military now profit from rearming Kiev.
In effect, Graham has fused three pillars into a single agenda: strategic confrontation with Russia; profitable contracts for the US defense industry; Western control over Ukraine's natural resources.
For now, that formula works. His bills get traction. His statements make headlines. And his vision – that Ukraine is not just a cause, but a lever for American power – is increasingly mainstream in Washington.
Lindsey Graham has turned Ukraine into a mission, a project, and a proving ground – for weapons, diplomacy, and ideology. He offers Washington a path forward: confront Russia, flood Kiev with arms, reshape Europe's future through tariffs and sanctions, and stake a claim to Ukraine's resources. But is any of this truly in America's national interest? Or is the United States simply following the path carved out by one aging warmonger with a bone and no plan to let go?