A potential agreement between the US and Ukraine on rare earth minerals will be a "game-changer" for significantly increasing the Trump administration's support for Ukraine, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stated on Saturday.
Kyiv and Washington are in negotiations to reach an agreement that would grant the US permission to extract essential minerals, including rare earth minerals, used in various everyday and advanced technologies, as well as military equipment. US President Donald Trump indicated earlier this week that the deal is crucial for Ukraine to secure ongoing military backing.
“Should the mineral agreement come into effect, it would be a nightmare for Putin because we would have something to defend that we did not have before," Graham said at the Munich Security Conference.
"They're sitting on top of trillions of dollars' worth of minerals that all of us can benefit from," he said.
It's a "game changer, because President Trump can go to the American people and say Ukraine's not a burden, it's a benefit," he said, adding: "So you better be pulling for this minerals agreement."
Meanwhile Graham stated at the conference that the US Senate strongly supports America's role and membership in NATO, despite some less enthusiastic statements by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said European security is no longer a top priority for the US.
"The US Senate is strongly aligned with NATO," Graham said.
There's an isolationist sentiment within the Republican party, but we've addressed that since NATO's inception.
We require NATO's presence more than ever. Putin wouldn't invade a NATO member country because he's aware that the repercussions would be far too severe.
He stated that the West would be "foolish" if it doesn't significantly boost its military aid to Kyiv; citing potential opportunities for weapons manufacturers in his home state.
If we don’t provide Ukraine with the maximum support possible, then we should be ashamed. They need more F16s, not fewer, and they are manufactured in South Carolina.
We would be foolish not to create the most formidable Ukrainian military force possible as a means of deterrence.
Graham stated "lessons were learned" from the failure of successive Western governments to respond with strength to Putin's initial invasion in Ukraine in 2014, due to concerns that it could "provoke" him further.
We made a mistake in 2014.
We should have integrated our economies with Ukraine to give them a sense of optimism, but we didn't do that because we didn't want to provoke Putin.
We should have bolstered the Ukrainian military to make it more challenging for an invasion, but we didn't do that because we didn't want to antagonize Putin.
“Furthermore, we deliberately chose not to inform him of the potential consequences of repeating the action in order to avoid escalating the situation.”
“Don’t be concerned about antagonizing Putin, focus on preventing Putin.”