The Biden administration has hesitated to label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, even as Congress presses and Ukraine urges such a designation. The topic has been widely discussed in national media, including a recent New York Times analysis.
For weeks, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has faced pressure to formally declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. That designation is currently reserved for four nations. Yet officials worry that moving forward could complicate sanctions on other countries doing business with Moscow and complicate diplomacy between Washington and Moscow.
As early as late July, amid growing outrage over Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the US Senate passed a nonbinding resolution urging Blinken to acknowledge Russia as a sponsor of terrorism in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia. The resolution pointed to violence that caused numerous civilian casualties in multiple theaters of conflict.
Senator Lindsey Graham remarked that Putin now sits at the top of the state terror apparatus and that existing sanctions, while impactful, should be expanded. The administration has indicated that any decision will rest on current legal criteria and that Russia is already under a broad set of sanctions that align with what would follow a formal designation. In practical terms, the immediate effects would mirror existing restrictions.
Analysts suggested that if the administration concedes to the Senate, diplomatic ties with Moscow could become more strained. Blinken has emphasized the importance of maintaining a channel to Russia, noting a recent phone discussion with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as the war continued. This conversation marked the first direct contact since Russia began its operations in Ukraine.
Under public pressure
The article notes that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has openly urged recognition of Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. House of Representatives is preparing to vote on a resolution aligned with the Senate’s stance. The disagreement between the Biden administration and Congress over how to evaluate Russia’s actions in Ukraine became apparent soon after the February 24 start of the conflict.
When congressional leaders accused Russia of war crimes, Blinken stressed the need for clear evidence and legal criteria. By March 16, President Biden publicly labeled Putin a war criminal, a move that drew sharp reactions from Moscow but did not have tangible political consequences domestically. Analysts interviewed suggested that such a designation could prompt Russia to expel American diplomats, a possibility that has long been discussed in policy circles.
Even amid the ongoing war, the United States has sought to keep some channels open with Russia. There have been negotiations involving Iran over the nuclear deal and other issues where Moscow remains a stakeholder. The overarching goal appears to be managing conflict dynamics while pursuing strategic interests through dialogue where possible.
U.S. Senate resolution
On July 27, the Senate advanced a resolution urging the State Department to recognize Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism due to actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. A formal statement from the Senate outlined the resolution and its parliamentary process. Russian officials issued strong warnings about potential consequences for relations with Washington, while Moscow’s foreign ministry issued sharp responses to the move, calling it propaganda and promising to respond to any steps taken by the United States.