This week I have been reading heavily about the Ukraine crisis from multiple news sources. Particularly useful have been the Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek who have both had excellent coverage. But one particular article stood out by Rutgers University Professor Alexander J. Motyl.

Motyl argues that the involvement of Russia directly and indirectly in Eastern Ukraine including the breakaway “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Kharkov People’s Republic,”  rise to the level of what constitutes state terror sponsorship under the United States code.  Judge for yourself based on the law –

Here is Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code:

Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code defines certain key terms used in Section 2656f(a) as follows:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

Interpretation and Application of Key Terms. For purposes of this report, the terms “international terrorism,” “terrorism,” and “terrorist group” have the definitions assigned to them in 22 USC 2656f(d) (see above). The term “non-combatant,” which is referred to but not defined in 22 USC 2656f(d)(2), is interpreted to mean, in addition to civilians, military personnel (whether or not armed or on duty) who are not deployed in a war zone or a war-like setting.

It should be noted that 22 USC 2656f(d) is one of many U.S. statutes and international legal instruments that concern terrorism and acts of violence, many of which use definitions for terrorism and related terms that are different from those used in this report. The interpretation and application of defined and related terms concerning terrorism in this report is therefore specific to the statutory and other requirements of the report, and is not intended to express the views of the U.S. government on how these terms should be interpreted or applied for any other purpose. Accordingly, there is not necessarily any correlation between the interpretation of terms such as “non-combatant” for purposes of this report and the meanings ascribed to similar terms pursuant to the law of war (which encapsulates the obligations of states and individuals with respect to their activities in situations of armed conflict).

In fairness, while the use of this provision of the law has applied largely to rogue nations such as Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, it could be argued the US’ most reliable ally, the United Kingdom could have been subjected to this provision of the law. During the Troubles in the 1970s, elements of the British Government particularly when the Conservative (Tory) party was in power supported violent Ulster Nationalists who crossed the border into the Republic of Ireland and created unionist propaganda not dissimilar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine now.

Ultimately, it is highly unlikely the administration will sanction Russia as a state sponsor of terror. The ramifications diplomatically and economically would be too great. But it is worthy of discussion.