Russia State Sponsor of Terrorism? /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Patrick Henningsen

Sen Lindsey Graham claims that in 2025 Russia has invaded Ukraine and allegedly taken ~19,546 Ukrainian children to Russia; some teenagers are being trained to fight for Russia.

Urgent moral call: make this practice unacceptable and take action to get the children returned.

Notes a US push (Lindsey Graham mentioned) to add Russia to the U.S. list of “state sponsors of terrorism” and to legislate new tools/sanctions to pressure Russia.

Guest (Patrick) strongly rejects that approach and labels Graham’s rhetoric “a raving lunatic” move — argues it’s a political stunt and counterproductive.

Contesting the numbers/claims: guest says the large abduction narrative has been “thoroughly debunked” and traces it to one academic report (from Yale) produced in absentia; claims much of the evidence is derivative and politicized.

Offers alternative account: many children were separated by war, came from group homes/orphanages, or were moved across the border with options offered (exfiltration/safe haven, or camp-like placements) — not necessarily mass kidnapping for militarization.

Mentions independent journalism (e.g., Grey Zone) that reportedly investigated and found the “camps” to be benign (music classes, holiday-camp style).

Places the proposal to designate Russia as a terror state in a pattern of Washington hoping sanctions/labels will eventually “break” adversaries — speaker thinks that strategy hasn’t worked and is unlikely to work against Russia.

Compares the situation to past Western campaigns (Syria) and explains why those cases differ — Syria’s breakdown involved many external actors and conditions that don’t map neatly onto Russia.

Argues that long-term sanctions and pressure have mixed results, and warns Washington’s repeated reliance on these playbooks (and hopes for a repeat of Cold War-style outcomes) is misguided.

Closing note: skepticism about the effectiveness and motives of U.S. policymakers pushing tougher labels and sanctions; the guest views the kidnapping narrative and resulting legal/political moves as politicized and unreliable.

One-line takeaway: the clip contrasts a raw moral alarm over children taken in the war with a guest’s counter-argument that the scale and nature of those claims are politicized and that labeling Russia a “state sponsor of terror” is both dubious and unlikely to achieve useful results.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.