https://sputnikglobe.com/20220819/report-state-department-has-serious-problems-with-calling-russia-state-terror-sponsor--1099748326.html
Report: State Department Has ‘Serious Problems’ With Calling Russia State Terror Sponsor
Report: State Department Has ‘Serious Problems’ With Calling Russia State Terror Sponsor
Sputnik International
The State Department is quietly pushing back on congressional efforts to brand Russia a state sponsor of terror, a new report suggests, a week after a Russian... 19.08.2022, Sputnik International
2022-08-19T04:20+0000
2022-08-19T04:20+0000
2022-08-19T04:19+0000
americas
russia
state department
us
state sponsor of terror
grain exports
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e5/0a/0c/1089858677_0:143:3072:1871_1920x0_80_0_0_a89bea0d042761c8588bf05ed990d0fa.jpg
The State Department has “serious problems” with the Senate’s recent resolution demanding Russia be placed on the terrorism blacklist, and is privately cautioning congressional members against the measure, Politico detailed Thursday.The outlet reported that the fears stem from concerns that the move could jeopardize a fragile agreement, which has allowed merchants to begin shipping grain stuck behind Ukrainian mines in the Black Sea in recent weeks.In July, the site wrote that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had privately issued an ultimatum to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, demanding he “designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism - otherwise, Congress will.”Congress has largely marched in unison toward escalation with Russia at every turn of its six-month conflict with Ukraine – a unity evident in the unanimous passage in late July of a resolution calling on Blinken to add Russia to the list of supposed state terror sponsors, alongside other longtime targets of Washingotn’s ire, including Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who co-sponsored the initiative, has said publicly what Pelosi apparently still won’t; he told CNN earlier this month that if the Biden administration won’t act on its own to slap Russia with the incendiary label, “whether or not we have to do legislation to make it happen—we're willing to do” it.According to unofficial NATO think tank Atlantic Council, there are other reasons for the Biden administration to think twice, not the least of which is the spillover of blanket anti-Russia sanctions onto a large number of US allies.And it’s true–huge exceptions for Russian energy exports would almost certainly have to be carved out to prevent European economies from going under overnight. In the developing world, nations dependent on cheap and reliable Russian fertilizer could potentially be forced to choose between subjecting their people to starvation or being subjected to Western sanctions.Little wonder, then, that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reacted with such dismay to the US proposal on August 13, saying the US forgets that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and a logical reaction to their irresponsible move would be the severance of diplomatic relations, which would push Washington beyond the point of no return with all the ensuing consequences.”“The United States must understand this.”
americas
russia
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
2022
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
russia, state department, us, state sponsor of terror, grain exports
russia, state department, us, state sponsor of terror, grain exports
Report: State Department Has ‘Serious Problems’ With Calling Russia State Terror Sponsor
The State Department is quietly pushing back on congressional efforts to brand Russia a state sponsor of terror, a new report suggests, a week after a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson underscored that such a designation would prompt a “equal” reaction by Moscow.
The State Department has “serious problems” with the Senate’s recent resolution demanding Russia be placed on the terrorism blacklist, and is privately cautioning congressional members against the measure, Politico detailed Thursday.
The outlet reported that the fears stem from concerns that the move could jeopardize a fragile agreement, which has allowed merchants to begin shipping grain stuck behind Ukrainian mines in the Black Sea in recent weeks.
In July, the site wrote that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had privately
issued an ultimatum to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, demanding he “designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism - otherwise, Congress will.”
Congress has largely marched in unison toward escalation with Russia at every turn of its six-month conflict with Ukraine – a unity evident in the unanimous passage in late July of a resolution calling on Blinken to add Russia to the list of supposed state terror sponsors, alongside other longtime targets of Washingotn’s ire, including Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who co-sponsored the initiative, has said publicly what Pelosi apparently still won’t; he told CNN earlier this month that if the Biden administration won’t act on its own to slap Russia with the incendiary label, “
whether or not we have to do legislation to make it happen—we're willing to do” it.
According to unofficial NATO think tank Atlantic Council, there are
other reasons for the Biden administration to think twice, not the least of which is the spillover of blanket anti-Russia sanctions onto a large number of US allies.
And it’s true–huge exceptions for Russian energy exports would almost certainly have to be carved out to prevent European economies from going under overnight. In the developing world, nations dependent on cheap and reliable Russian fertilizer could potentially be forced to choose between subjecting their people to starvation or being subjected to Western sanctions.
Little wonder, then, that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reacted with such dismay to the US proposal on August 13, saying the US forgets that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and a logical reaction to their irresponsible move would be the severance of diplomatic relations, which would push Washington beyond the point of no return with all the ensuing consequences.”
“The United States must understand this.”
