Moscow indicated it would sever ties with Washington if U.S. lawmakers declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The position was presented as a warning that such a move would push Moscow toward a new and uncertain set of diplomatic and strategic outcomes. The implication was clear: Moscow is prepared for any development that follows in the wake of this potential decision.
Spokesperson Maria Zakharova argued that applying a U.S. domestic law in this way would be seen abroad as a harsh penalty. She suggested it would force Russia to live under a rules-based order crafted by the United States, highlighting how such a stance could be interpreted as a disregard for international law and could provoke a broader political and diplomatic backlash.
Zakharova emphasized that Moscow would not be deterred by the threat of punishment and warned that any action would provoke opposition. She suggested that moves to cut or sharply curtail engagement would provoke reciprocal measures and potentially a rupture in diplomatic relations, a scenario that would almost certainly complicate Washington’s own interests and security commitments.
She added that Russia was prepared for various possible developments and would endure if Washington chose to end all contact. The Kremlin had already begun evaluating the consequences of such a step, noting that the current trajectory would be difficult to navigate and could place both sides in an unenviable position.
On June 21, Dmitry Peskov, the president’s press secretary, said the Kremlin viewed the potential step with strong reservations. He acknowledged the difficulty of taking any action that could further destabilize Russia–U.S. relations, given the fragile state of the relationship at that moment.
There were calls for Russia to be recognized as a sponsor of terrorism from other states, including Ukraine, Latvia, and Lithuania. A number of senators and lawmakers argued that such a designation would serve as a symbolic and practical response to the conflict in Ukraine and related security challenges.
Senator Sergei Tsekov warned that such a move would strain bilateral ties and could complicate alignment with other countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Leonid Slutsky, head of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, suggested that recognizing Russia as a terrorist sponsor would reveal Washington’s limited understanding of global affairs.
State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin criticized U.S. policy by saying that the United States had a long history of actions that violated international norms. He argued that many countries prefer a world with multiple centers of power, rather than a single dominant hegemon that seeks to control global outcomes for its own benefit.
Allegations and official responses
In April, a U.S. State Department spokesperson signaled that Washington was weighing the possibility of listing Russia among those it views as accomplices of terrorism. Major media outlets reported that U.S. officials were considering all available avenues to hold Moscow accountable for developments in Ukraine.
Officials stated that decisions would be based on a careful examination of facts and laws, with the aim of choosing action that is legally sound and effective within international norms.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later echoed the sentiment that such a designation might be necessary and called for broad support from the democratic world. In late June, French President Emmanuel Macron publicly declined to classify Russia as a sponsor of terrorism, arguing that such an approach was not the preferred method for addressing the issue and that international justice should guide responses.
In late July, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the State Department to formally designate Russia as a sponsor of terrorism, warning that failure to act could prompt legislative measures. A Senate resolution followed, urging the executive branch to recognize Russia as a sponsor of terrorism in light of the events in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. Washington faced questions about the timing and potential consequences of any such label.
Subsequent reporting indicated that Secretary of State Antony Blinken was not prepared to make the designation, despite pressure from lawmakers. Reports suggested concerns that labeling Russia as a state sponsor could trigger sanctions on allies and complicate ongoing diplomatic and economic ties essential for managing expectable and unexpected international responses.
The broader implications of a formal designation include potential impacts on diplomatic relations and the possibility of secondary sanctions for states that maintain cooperation with Russia. Some European partners had already begun to address related security and political considerations in response to the evolving situation in Ukraine and surrounding regions.
In May, Latvia and Lithuania moved to recognize Russia as a state supporting terrorism, while other nations weighed similar options. These moves reflect a broader international debate about the appropriate tools and thresholds for addressing aggression and human rights concerns in the region, as states balance security priorities with economic and diplomatic interests.
Looking at the current landscape, the United States maintains a roster of states formally labeled as sponsors of terrorism. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba have occupied different positions on this list at various times, with ongoing debates about the criteria and consequences of those designations. Russia’s potential listing would add a new layer to this framework, raising questions about how such a label would affect sanctions, diplomacy, and long-term regional stability.
At present, Russia faces a tight web of sanctions and political pressures from a broad coalition of partners. Whether a formal designation would bring new economic penalties or simply alter diplomatic immunities remains a point of speculation. The debate continues over which measures would be most effective in advancing strategic objectives while maintaining lines of communication that could prevent wider conflicts and preserve essential channels for dialogue and negotiation.