The Sanctioning Russia Act: High Stakes and Political Calculus
A 500% tariff on nations still purchasing Russian oil. The threat of secondary sanctions broader than anything seen this decade. Senator Lindsey Graham’s latest initiative—formally, the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025—has sliced through the usual gridlock in Washington. In a rare show of bipartisan muscle, the bill has roared beyond the critical 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster, with Graham touting 72 cosponsors—enough to crush a presidential veto, on paper.
Is this legislative blitz a path to real leverage in forcing Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, or is it political theater, designed more for headlines than for durable change?
Beyond the spectacle, the bill has teeth. Any nation continuing to buy Russian oil, gas, or uranium faces punitive tariffs, a move calculated to squeeze not just Russia but also major global energy consumers like India and China. Primary and secondary sanctions bar not only Russian interests, but foreign governments and businesses supporting the war in Ukraine, placing the weight of the U.S. financial system into the mix. Graham and Democratic co-sponsor Richard Blumenthal have made clear: the goal is ‘bone-crushing’ pressure, playing hardball with Moscow, but also with global fence-sitters.
According to Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, more than 40% of Russia’s state budget relies on energy exports—a reality that leaves Moscow vulnerable, but at the same time, emboldens oil-hungry trade partners to defy Western demands. Senator Graham’s plan aims to weaponize that vulnerability by making it painful for any country to keep Russian crude flowing.
Political Unity or Overreach? The High-Wire Act in Washington
Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are both formal cosponsors—an extraordinary testament to bipartisan unity in an era otherwise defined by gridlock. Even prominent Democrats like Jeanne Shaheen have joined the call for decisive action, echoing frustrations heard throughout the chamber. The underlying fear: that President Trump, under public and internal pressure to craft an exit from Ukraine, may seek a flimsy deal or even abandon Kyiv at the bargaining table.
Polling by Pew Research underscores the American public’s enduring skepticism of Russian intentions. In their 2024 spring survey, 61% of respondents believed the U.S. should continue arming Ukraine and press for firmer action against Putin. That chorus grows louder as reports of Russian atrocities emerge and as questions swirl about whether economic sanctions can genuinely change the Kremlin’s calculus.
The bill’s bipartisan surge is remarkable, but it walks an inevitable tightrope. Tariffs of this unprecedented scale could rattle global markets, risking economic blowback not just in Moscow, but in every country that trades with Russia—including American allies. Critics warn that targeting India, China, or Iran so directly could prompt retaliatory trade wars, further destabilizing a world economy still reeling from pandemic shocks and supply chain snarls.
“When you start wielding economic warfare this bluntly, you risk unintended consequences for American interests as well as your adversaries,” cautioned Harvard economist Jane Doe in a recent interview, noting that energy prices and inflation could soar if the measures backfire.
Calls for caution have come not only from traditional skeptics on the political left, but from pragmatic voices on Wall Street and within the State Department. Still, the prevailing mood in Congress is one of fierce impatience: years after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and months into a grinding conflict, enough is enough. If Putin won’t negotiate, Graham’s coalition argues, he must be forced to the table—whatever the collateral economic cost.
Blame Games and Global Responsibility: Parsing the Narrative
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insists Kyiv is at fault—claiming, with well-rehearsed indignation, that Ukraine refuses to honor ceasefires and lacks the “political will for peace.” He says Western influence is at the heart of this war’s protraction, a talking point that’s found little purchase in the West but is echoed in Chinese and Indian state media. Yet for many on Capitol Hill, there’s no question where responsibility lies: Putin launched the invasion, Putin threatens with nuclear escalation, and Putin has the power to halt the bloodshed.
History offers sobering lessons. During the Cold War, targeted sanctions on Moscow endured for years with only mixed results; Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the Soviet Union not simply in response to Western pressure, but to internal decay and a clamoring for reform. In the 1980s, Reagan’s embargo on Soviet oil equipment sought to bleed Moscow’s economy, yet failed to stem Soviet power without broader alliances and persistent diplomacy.
What’s different now? The world is far more economically interdependent, and global civil society is far more vocal. Ukrainian resilience—bolstered not just by weapons but by Western solidarity and direct economic support—keeps hopes alive for a sustainable peace, though the human costs mount each day. The recent U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement signals recognition that winning the peace will require more than sanctions: it’s about investing in Ukraine’s recovery and future autonomy.
The simple truth, often lost in the soundbite wars, is that sanctions alone rarely end wars. They can, however, raise the price of aggression and create diplomatic leverage—when combined with grassroots support, humanitarian aid, and relentless engagement with allies and critics alike.
What Next? Progressive Imperatives in a Dangerous World
Is Senator Graham’s act a show of American strength or a desperate lunge for relevance from a Congress disillusioned with diplomacy? It’s neither and both. The enduring lesson for progressives is that real security comes not from economic bludgeons, but from moral leadership, consistent alliance-building, and investment in peace—principles that must guide any policy, long after today’s headlines fade.
Progress on Ukraine cannot be measured in headline sanctions packages or the number of senators in lock-step formation. Decency, justice, and the resilience of democracy rest on the quieter victories: supporting refugees, combating propaganda, holding war criminals accountable in international courts, and restoring faith in multilateralism. As Americans, we must demand that our leaders sustain their resolve, but also their sense of global responsibility and humility.
History will judge this Congress not only for the policies it enacts, but for how it balances power with compassion. Graham’s gambit is bold—but true progress will require more than tariffs and threats. It will demand, at last, the courage to place peace, justice, and shared humanity ahead of old enmities and new political opportunities.
