The Trump administration has decided not to punish anyone – for now – under new sanctions retaliating for Russia’s election-meddling, the State Department has said.
The move has fuelled further questions about whether president Donald Trump is too soft on Moscow.
The government had until Monday to take two steps under a law passed by Congress last year in the wake of the 2016 presidential campaign.
The first required the US to place sanctions on anyone doing “significant” business with people linked to Russia’s defence and intelligence agencies, using a blacklist the US released in October.
The second required the administration to publish a list of Russian “political figures and oligarchs” who have grown rich under President Vladimir Putin.
On the first item, the administration decided it did not need to penalise anyone, even though several countries have had multibillion-dollar arms deals with Russia in the works.
State Department officials said the threat of sanctions had been deterrent enough, and that “sanctions on specific entities or individuals will not need to be imposed”.
“We estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defence acquisitions,” said State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert. She did not provide evidence or cite any examples.
On the second item — the “Putin list” — the day came and went with no sign of if or when it would be released.
The so-called Putin List was published in the early hours of Tuesday by the Treasury Department and it contains 114 individuals deemed to be senior Russian political figures.
It also includes 96 people deemed to be “oligarchs.” The Treasury says each has an estimated net worth of 1 billion dollars (£712m) or more.
By itself, being on the Putin list doesn’t trigger US sanctions. Yet the list induced fear among rich Russians who are concerned that it could lead later to US sanctions or to being informally blacklisted in the global financial system.
It has triggered a fierce lobbying campaign, with Russia hawks in Congress pushing the administration to include certain names and lobbyists hired by Russian businessmen urging the administration to keep their clients off.
Companies or foreign governments that had been doing business with blacklisted Russian entities had been given a three-month grace period to extricate themselves from transactions, starting in October when the blacklist was published and ending Monday.
But only those engaged in “significant transactions” are to be punished, and the United States has never defined that term or given a dollar figure. That ambiguity has made it impossible for the public to know exactly what is and is not permissible.
Late last year, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said one reason the US was proceeding cautiously was that major US allies have much at stake.
Turkey, a NATO ally, has a deal to buy the S-400, Russia’s most advanced air defence missile system, and key security partner Saudi Arabia recently struck an array of deals with Moscow, including contracts for weapons.
It was unclear whether either country had since abandoned those deals to avoid running afoul of the US sanctions.
Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lambasted the move to punish no-one, saying he was “fed up” and that Trump’s administration had chosen to “let Russia off the hook yet again.” He dismissed the State Department’s claim that “the mere threat of sanctions” would stop Moscow from further meddling in America’s elections.
“How do you deter an attack that happened two years ago, and another that’s already underway?” Mr Engel said. “It just doesn’t make sense.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here