After an attack on a former spy, the State Department pondered placing that label on Putin’s government. Instead, the Trump administration continued a longtime U.S. policy of treating Russia as a partner in fighting terrorism even as evidence of its misbehavior mounts.
by Sebastian Rotella
by Sebastian Rotella
The attempt to kill a former Russian spy in England bore an ominous
signature: The assailants used a lethal nerve agent of a type developed
in the Soviet Union, and British investigators quickly concluded that
only the Kremlin could have carried out such a sophisticated hit.
Soon after the March attack, Rex Tillerson, then the U.S. secretary
of state, ordered State Department officials to outline the case for
designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law. Experts in the department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism began to assemble
what they thought was a strong case.
But almost as quickly as the review began — within about two days —
the secretary of state’s office sent new instructions to drop the
initiative, according to State Department officials familiar with the
episode.
“There are a lot of issues that we have to work on together with
Russia,” a U.S. official said. “Designating them would interfere with
our ability to do that.”
The State Department’s reluctance to impose the terror designation
was not a product of Trump administration sympathy for Russian President
Vladimir Putin, U.S. officials say. Rather, it reflected an ambivalent
and at times contradictory policy toward Russia on terrorism issues that
stretches back more than a dozen years, American intelligence officials
and foreign-policy experts said.
Click here for the full article.
Source: ProPublica
No comments:
Post a Comment