Will the US Designate Russia a State Sponsor of Terrorism?*

During a recent phone call, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked President Joe Biden to designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. What would this nuclear option that some people want mean in practice?

The U.S. State Department has an established list of state sponsors of terrorism, which includes countries that “have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”

Such inexact wording allows the U.S. government to arbitrarily decide the meaning of “repeatedly,” “support” and, above all, “international terrorism.”

4 Countries on the List: North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba

The criteria are rather vague when one looks at the current list. So far, it recognizes four countries as state sponsors of terrorism — North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba. Syria has been on the list for the longest uninterrupted period since 1979 because of the substantial backing it has provided to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The U.S added Iran in 1984, also for showing support to Hezbollah, which carried out major terrorist attacks on U.S. targets in Lebanon the previous year, and for its support of Palestinian groups waging terrorist attacks on Israel. But Lebanon has never been designated a state sponsor of terrorism, although Hezbollah (which has been part of the government in recent years) has its headquarters there.

Each subsequent report of the State Department on terrorism adds additional offenses. In the latest 2019 edition, instance, the U.S. accused the government in Damascus of supporting the Islamic State and Tehran in connection with a rocket attack on a U.S. military base in Iraq by Shiite militia. As you can see, there is a broad understanding of terrorism.

The event that sealed North Korea’s fate on the list of state sponsors was the bombing of a South Korean passenger aircraft in 1987. In 2008, North Korea was removed from the list because it had not committed terrorist acts for a lengthy period, but in 2017 Donald Trump reinstated North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, on the slightly far-fetched pretext of the assassination of Kim Jong Nam, half-brother of the North Korean leader, in Malaysia. Back then, Trump simply needed something he could use to scare Kim Jong Un before the sudden easing of relations.

The most absurd entry on the list is Cuba, which is not known for terrorism. (Yet America’s attempted attack on Fidel Castro certainly was.) It is true, though, that in the 1970s, Cuba sheltered various leftist militants and and individuals who had hijacked American planes.

Barack Obama took Cuba off the list, but Trump reinstated its status as a state sponsor of terrorism during his last days in office — justifying it by pointing to Cuba’s support for Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela. One can argue about who supported whom more in this calculation, Venezuela or Cuba , but nevertheless, it’s difficult to see terrorism here.

Russia —Too Big a Superpower To Be on the List?

Accordingly, there should be nothing to prevent the U.S. from adding Russia to the list, most notably for shelling Ukrainian cities and killing civilians. One or two Americans are even among the casualties.

It’s not really worth asking why the U.S. should include Russia, and not, for instance, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia or some other government engaged in killing civilians, just as it’s not worth investigating why poisoning Kim Jong Nam qualified as terrorism while poisoning Alexander Litvinenko did not. The decision is always political.

It is worth noting that the U.S. didn’t recognize the Soviet Union as a sponsor of terrorism even during the Cold War, although there were many reasons to do so. For one, Moscow didn’t hide the fact that it supported terrorist groups such as the German Red Army Faction. This is similar to Maoist China, which the U.S. also did not recognize as a sponsor of terrorism.

These countries were important players that the United States wanted to remain engaged with.

“Complicating the bilateral relationship is particularly dangerous and troubling with a major power like Russia,” according to Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution writing in 2018. Byman continued to say that Moscow has interests and influence in many parts of the world that are critical to the United States. The U.S. can do without Libya and Sudan (which were removed from the list after bowing to the U.S. demands), but it can’t do without Russia.

Recognizing Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism Would Be a ‘Nuclear Option’

Russia’s power is waning before our eyes, so at some point, the White House may decide that it can do without it.

There may also be further reason to put Russia on the list if Vladimir Putin decides to take revenge by using unconventional methods of warfare because of the West’s support for Ukraine.

In practice, putting Russia on the list means additional sanctions. This includes a ban on receiving U.S. foreign aid and a ban on purchasing products that serve a dual commercial and military purpose. It would also mean hindering Russia’s contact with international financial institutions dominated by the U.S., such as the World Bank.

Moreover, this would have far-reaching consequences and exacerbate Russia’s economic problems. Dozens of countries that continue to trade with Russia would also face penalties.

For now, it doesn’t seem Biden is ready for it, as evidenced by, for instance, his lenient treatment of India, which happily buys oil from Russia at discount.

The Washington Post states that recognition as a state sponsor of terrorism would further underscore Russia’s status as an international pariah —at least in the Western world. A former State Department counterterrorism official recently likened this to an atomic option that would inflict “a precise hit on Putin’s ego.”**

*Editor’s Note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.

**Editor’s Note: Although accurately translated, this quoted remark could not be independently verified.