Is it possible for a nation’s military to be labeled a terrorist force when it targets civilian infrastructure to cut off essential services like water, electricity, or food? What is really gained by describing a state as a terrorist entity? This debate has dominated international politics in recent days, as the Russian Armed Forces intensified strikes across Ukraine far from the frontline, clearly aiming to harm civilian life. On one side, Ukraine’s leadership and many neighboring states, particularly former Soviet republics, push for classifying Russia as a terrorist state. On the other side, the United States and several major EU members resist using that label because of its legal and strategic ramifications, especially the potential disruption of diplomatic channels.
The NATO parliamentary gathering in Madrid this Monday concluded with a resolution urging member states and their legislatures to openly affirm that the Russian state is terrorist under the current regime, detailing acts such as deliberate, despicable attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure as acts of terrorism and war crimes.
On the issue of war crimes, there is broad consensus among the Allies. For example, Spain has deployed forensic teams to document crimes in places like Irpin, Bucha, and Izium and joined international calls for accountability. A legal action has been filed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague accusing President Vladimir Putin of possible war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, with more than forty countries urging prosecutors to investigate. The ICC has previously convicted Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic for crimes in the Balkan conflicts, underscoring the court’s evolving approach to accountability. (citation: ICC)
Yet, defining a leader or army as guilty of war crimes is distinct from labeling a state as terrorist or a state sponsor of terrorism. The United States has listed only a handful of states in this category: Syria (1979), Iran (1984), North Korea (2017), and Cuba (2021). U.S. practice involves a set of legal obligations—under certain statutes and ministerial guidance—that trigger financial sanctions, ban weapons sales, and constrain aid when a country is designated. (citation: U.S. government)
Congress has urged President Biden and Secretary Blinken to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. The White House has resisted, arguing that such a designation could complicate humanitarian relief, hinder UN and regional negotiations, and complicate grain exports from Ukraine. Officials claim it would fracture a broad multilateral coalition and weaken the allied diplomatic leverage needed to press Russia. The aim is to avoid causing broader harm while maintaining channels for dialogue that might prevent broader escalation.
As one expert noted, there is understandable reluctance in the U.S. to shut every door to diplomacy. Maintaining open lines can preserve space for dialogue and prevent unintended consequences, even amid pressure over potential escalation in nuclear scenarios. (citation: Finnish Institute of International Relations)
Diplomatic backchannels reportedly persist, evident in discreet discussions during major gatherings like the G-20. The practical consequence of sanctions reaches beyond governments; Western companies with ongoing dealings in Russia still face risk and reconfiguration of their operations. Madrid’s welcome for a new Russian ambassador to Spain, Yuri Klimenko, signals a continued, albeit cautious, diplomatic engagement.
now a punishment
President Volodymyr Zelensky has long urged Western powers to declare Russia a terrorist state following attacks such as strikes on civilian targets, including a train station holding evacuees last June. His recent speeches—delivered during a global virtual gathering in Madrid with MPs from around the world—underscore the strategic logic behind such a designation. He argues that it would reshape the wartime legal and political framework, enabling broader sanctions and reinforcing pressure on Moscow through international accountability mechanisms. (citation: UN/ICC reports)
From Ukraine’s viewpoint, a formal terrorist designation could pave the way for postwar war crimes trials and deepen sanctions that constrain Moscow during the conflict. It is seen as a method to systematize accountability and within scope of international law to deter future aggression. Yet opponents caution that this label can provoke counterproductive responses, complicate humanitarian corridors, and risk undermining necessary negotiations. (citation: European Parliament debate)
European leaders have moved at varying speeds. France has publicly avoided the term, while the European Parliament recently voted to describe Russia as a state that promotes terrorism, a resolution backed by most groups. The parliament also pressed for a mechanism that would implement sweeping sanctions, including embargoes on Russia’s hydrocarbon and uranium imports, the closure of gas pipelines Nord Stream 1 and 2, and tighter controls on diamonds and cryptocurrencies. The president of the European Commission reaffirmed concerns about the humanitarian and political implications of any designation and emphasized careful, coordinated action. (citation: European Parliament)
Lithuania has already voiced a clear position, acknowledging that Russia’s use of violence against civilians serves political aims and constitutes terrorism. Its parliamentary statement links arms support to Assad’s regime with Russia’s broader strategy, pointing to past incidents and international reactions as evidence. Moscow, in turn, has dismissed such efforts, mocking the European Parliament while continuing to project influence through allied forces and proxy groups. (citation: Lithuanian Parliament)