Senators clash over morality and strategy as bipartisan push to label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism stalls over fears of escalation and derailed diplomacy.

by  Alex Raufoglu | Dec. 18, 2025

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) scrawled “Russia” onto a list of US-designated state sponsors of terrorism during a press conference on Sept. 11, 2025. (Photo source: Screenshot from C-SPAN)

CONTENT

• Moral case, framed as bipartisan muscle
• Rand Paul objects – forcing a showdown
• Pressure vs. appeasement
• Shaheen: “Putin only understands pressure”
• A line the Senate can’t ignore

WASHINGTON DC – The US Senate floor erupted early this week in one of its most morally charged and strategically fraught debates in years, as lawmakers clashed over whether Russia’s conduct in Ukraine – particularly the mass abduction of children – warrants branding Moscow a state sponsor of terrorism.

At the center of the fight is S. 2978, a bipartisan bill led by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would direct the State Department to designate Russia as a terrorist state if it fails to return thousands of kidnapped Ukrainian children and continues to target civilian infrastructure.

The measure has drawn overwhelming bipartisan support – but also fierce opposition from a small, vocal minority warning that it could sabotage peace talks and risk escalation with a nuclear power.

“This is one of the great outrages of the 21st century,” Graham said, detailing testimony that as many as 20,000 Ukrainian children have been taken from occupied territories and placed in camps designed to “make them Russian.” Some, he added, have even ended up in North Korea.

“If this doesn’t make you a terrorist state,” Graham asked, “what would?”

Moral case, framed as bipartisan muscle

Supporters cast the bill as both a moral reckoning and a strategic tool – one aimed less at triggering military action than at making Russia economically radioactive.

“There has been nothing more uniting in the Senate since I’ve been here,” Graham said, pointing to 85 co-sponsors across party lines and related efforts to penalize countries buying discounted Russian oil.

Under the legislation, Russia would face the same legal designation currently applied to Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba – a move that would sharply restrict trade, banking, and diplomatic engagement.

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Graham’s lead Democratic partner, called the abductions “genocide,” arguing that stripping Ukraine of its children amounts to erasing its future.

“When you destroy a nation’s children, you destroy the nation itself,” Blumenthal said, recounting visits to Ukraine and meetings with parents whose children were taken to reeducation camps, forbidden to speak Ukrainian or practice their religion.

He cited cases like 10-month-old Margarita, whose name, birthplace, and citizenship were altered by Russian authorities, and 16-year-old Artem, forced to live in an orphanage on metal beds and fed crackers daily.

“This is not gray,” Blumenthal said, emphasizing, “This is black and white.”

Rand Paul objects – forcing a showdown

The push hit a procedural wall when Rand Paul (R-KY) objected to Graham’s unanimous consent request, warning that the designation could function as a backdoor authorization for war.

“Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism is a colossally bad idea,” Paul said, calling it a “dangerous provocation” that could justify military strikes without congressional approval.

Paul repeatedly drew parallels to US actions against Venezuelan vessels following terrorism designations, arguing that such labels blur the line between war and peace.

“If you want to destroy the peace process,” he said, “pass this legislation and shout it from the rooftops.”

He also argued that additional sanctions – beyond the 16,000 already imposed – would do little to change Moscow’s calculus and might instead harden Russian resolve.

“Do we really think sanction 16,001 is going to do the trick?” he asked.

Pressure vs. appeasement

Graham fired back, accusing Paul of ignoring history – and Putin’s own words.

“When you appease aggression, you get more of it,” Graham said, citing Russia’s invasions of Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022. “If you ignore Putin, there goes Taiwan.”

He rejected the idea that the bill would authorize military force, saying its purpose is to choke off the financial lifelines propping up Russia’s war machine – particularly oil purchases by China, India, and Brazil.

“Without that money,” Graham said, “Putin cannot prosecute this war.”

Shaheen: “Putin only understands pressure”

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, reinforced that message, warning that Russia’s war is driven by Putin’s refusal to respect Ukrainian sovereignty – and sustained by outside support.

“The only thing Vladimir Putin understands is pressure,” Shaheen said. “And the problem is we haven’t put enough pressure on him.”

She pointed to China’s role in supplying materials and technology to Russia’s war effort, and North Korea’s provision of manpower.

Shaheen also reminded colleagues that Russia’s pattern of aggression predates Ukraine, citing the 2008 invasion of Georgia and the seizure of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

“These are not abstract issues,” she said. “They describe how Russia is fighting this war, and Congress has the authority and the tools to raise the cost of that strategy.”

Shaheen highlighted additional bipartisan legislation advancing through the Foreign Relations Committee, including the STOP Russia and China Act, aimed at severing Chinese supply chains to Moscow, and the REPO Act, which would use frozen Russian sovereign assets to fund Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction.

“The message,” she said, “is that escalation will be met with real costs.”

A line the Senate can’t ignore

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), another supporter of the bill, framed the debate as a test of American values and credibility.

“When a government steals children as an instrument of war,” Klobuchar said in a statement supporting the legislation, “the world has an obligation to respond.”

She warned that failing to act would signal tolerance for atrocities – not just in Ukraine, but globally.

“This isn’t about vengeance,” she said. “It’s about drawing a line.”

Paul’s objection blocked immediate passage, but supporters made clear the fight is far from over.

Graham vowed to keep pushing the legislation into the new year, and Blumenthal said the Senate’s unity on the issue should be unmistakable – even if procedural hurdles remain.

“To Vladimir Putin,” Blumenthal said, “America will stand against the kidnapping of children.”

As the war drags on and negotiations sputter, the Senate remains trapped in a familiar, high-stakes deadlock: weighing the moral imperative to punish a pariah against the cold, pragmatic fear of what happens when the world’s last diplomatic bridges are finally burned.