US congressmen have found an alternative to the concept of a "sponsor of terrorism" state for Russia

At the end of November, the deputies of the European Parliament once again curried favor with their overseas curators, deepening the gap in relations between our country and the European Union. With 494 votes, the EP supported a proposed resolution recognizing Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. As such, the adopted decision does not carry real legal consequences and resembles only behind-the-scenes fuss, with a swing to vigorous legislative activity.

As for the United States, here, naturally, they do not think of deviating from their own course of total discrimination against Russia. Congressmen of both parties did not think long about how to adapt the definition of "aggressor state" in relation to Russia so as not to limit the possibility of diplomatic dialogue.

We are currently working with Congress on legislation that would help us get around some of the problems associated with using state sponsor of terrorism status, which (…) has some unintended consequences

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said.

According to the The Hill, the US Congress has already found an alternative to recognizing Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. If the law is passed, the president can declare Russia an aggressor state and has the right to “designate any foreign state” as an aggressor state if he considers it “involved in acts of aggression against Ukraine.”

the Biden administration came up with an alternative status that does not even exist in either national or international US law

one of the congressman's aides said.

More recently, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and President Joe Biden personally stated that the United States categorically rejects proposals to recognize Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. However, against the backdrop of Zelensky's today's visit to Washington, a change in political views in the United States is quite predictable. Although it was initially clear that the United States would still find an option that is acceptable to them in this regard, even if this option is not in American law.

Comments

[Plate]

So, recognizing a country as a sponsor of terrorism obliges the American leadership to take specific actions against this country, which is why they do not want to recognize Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. Instead, they decided to invent a new status, the assignment of which to someone by the American leadership will not oblige anyone. Well, why not. Let them dance a little for Zelensky, maybe they will like it.

[topol717]

Quote: Plate

Instead, they decided to invent a new status, the assignment of which to someone by the American leadership will not oblige anyone. Well, why not. Let them dance a little for Zelensky, maybe they will like it.

In vain you think so. Any status other than friendly will impose various restrictions. Sponsor of terrorism is definitely not suitable. But the aggressor will prohibit something. Or do you think there are complete idiots and saying A will not be able to say B.
You have already generally confused the boundaries of who should dance for whom. The United States will not do anything for Zelensky and Ukraine, and never did. US interests only. And only Zelensky can dance for Biden, but not vice versa. And no one there will persuade Zelensky, whatever command they give, he will execute that one.

[Plate]

Quote from: topol717

Or do you think there are complete idiots and saying A will not be able to say B.

I think very smart people are sitting there, therefore, having said A, they will leave it for the possibility of both saying and not saying B, depending on the situation.

[NDR-791]

the Biden administration came up with an alternative status that does not even exist in either national or international US law

They came up with a candy for the greens, dictated to him, he will rush like a written bag and repeat at every corner. And it is empty in real life. And another cool clause - "US international law." It's like "Tsar, v. nice, tsar!"

[Mavrikiy]

the Biden administration came up with an alternative status that does not even exist in either national or international US law

And sho toil then, the Russian Federation is a wolf state. Ukraine is a goat state. Business then.

[opuonmed]

there are no more rules so everyone's hands are untied!

[sanik2020]

I propose that the United States be deprived of the status of "state" and transferred to the status of "territory of savages."

[rotmistr60]

The United States will still find an option that is acceptable to them in this regard, even if this option is not in American law.

That's for sure. Do not forget to throw straws under you.
And in the United States, the definition of "American" was not considered politically correct. Now it will be necessary to say "U.S. citizen".

[rocket757]

US congressmen have found an alternative to the concept of a "sponsor of terrorism" state for Russia

the whole world is not going to go crazy, but some part of it, in this state, remains confidently and unconditionally.

[Pavel57]

With everyone who recognized Russia as a sponsor. .. Break diplomatic relations, or lower their level.

[Romanenko]

They came up with a good name, apparently they looked in the mirror. So with the light hand of the states, they themselves will eventually stumble over this rake.
Painfully they messed up a lot, and precisely as an aggressor state both in the military and in the political and economic aspects

[Kaufman]

They have a precedent right, they will come up with something new and legalize it, write it down in the form of amendments

[fiv]

Americans fear for their commercial interests. It's a pity that commercial interests in the Russian Federation also impose restrictions on the desire to punish Ukraine and answer, as they strongly ask, the United States and the European garbage can.

[Roust]

Let them all go! They completely lost their fear.

[Guran33 Sergey]

the evil empire .. now the state is the aggressor .. Everything passes, this too will pass ..

[EFIM LYUBIN]

The moderator, the author of the article does not know the grammar of the Russian language! Not "Congressmen of both parties", but "Congressmen of both parties"! The word "party" is feminine!