The Senate has repeatedly shown support for designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Biden administration, however, definitively rejected these appeals in mid-September. Nevertheless, to circumvent the executive branch, bills that would legislatively impose a terrorist designation are now moving forward in both the House and Senate — and that’s a good thing.
So far, only the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have declared Russia a terrorist state. Due to their small size, this has had limited impact. In contrast, a terrorist designation by the United States would be highly consequential. Its symbolic value would eclipse what was achieved in the Baltics, cementing Russia’s pariah status in most of the developed world. Economically, it would entrench and expand sanctions against Moscow, restrict access to debt relief and international financing, and nullify Russia’s entitlement to sovereign immunity. Without sovereign immunity, Russia could be sued in U.S. courts, with awarded damages being taken from the country’s frozen assets.
MACRON RULES OUT NUCLEAR RESPONSE IF RUSSIA NUKES UKRAINE, COULD EMBOLDEN PUTIN
Opponents argue that a terrorist designation would be counterproductive. They say that the U.S. needs diplomatic maneuvering space, without which it will be harder to pressure Russia into ending the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin may become more convinced that the U.S. is pressing for regime change, hardening his resolve to press forward with war. He could demand that sanctions be lifted before agreeing to peace — but terrorist designations are hard to undo once applied. Washington and Moscow also collaborate on multilateral aid and peacekeeping missions, often through the United Nations, but a terrorist designation could imperil that. Damages awarded to U.S. citizens through new lawsuits could siphon away funds that ought to be sent to Ukrainians. Finally, given the litany of sanctions and condemnation Russia already faces, would a terrorist designation have any real impact?
These are understandable but flawed objections — ones that suffer from some logical inconsistency. You cannot argue that a terrorist designation would simultaneously be inconsequential and devastating. If you believe this designation would have negligible economic and symbolic impacts, you can’t then argue that it would destroy remaining diplomatic maneuvering space and upend multilateral cooperation.
It has been argued that the U.S. could amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that lawsuit damages are reserved for Ukrainians. That solution has unresolved complications, such as whether some damages could be used to cover legal fees and whether it’s productive to remove the financial incentive from lawsuits. But it offers a start.
Put simply, the downsides of designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism are not as convincing as they might appear on the surface. The Biden administration shouldn’t undermine legislative attempts to call out Russian behavior for what it is.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Adam Zivo is a Canadian columnist and policy analyst who relocated to Ukraine earlier this year to report on the Russia-Ukraine war. He is writing a book on how the war is experienced by average Ukrainians.
