Russian Pay Off? Trump Easing Sanctions Against Russia

Russian Pay Off? Trump Easing Sanctions Against Russia

Today it was reported by USA Today that the Trump Administration is going to ease sanctions against the Russian Federal Security Service. The sanctions issued by President Obama in 2015 dealt with the licensing cyber-security sales to the Russian Federal Security Service which used to be the KGB.
<blockquote>The license, listed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department, covers “all transactions and activities” involving the Federal Security Service, known as the FSB, that were prohibited by earlier executive orders.

“The initial sanctions, as imposed by President Obama in April 2015, were titled “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.” That was further strengthened in December in an order entitled, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the national emergency with Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-enabled Activities.”</blockquote>
Russian authorities are unsure of the easing of sanctions claiming “First we need to understand what it is all about. If we turn to the rocket engines matter, we will see that our US counterparts never impose sanctions that could damage their own interest.”
<blockquote>Some in congress are wishing to increase sanctions against Russia and last month Sen. John McCain and Lindsey Graham led the charge. Senator John McCain has issued a warning to the White House that if things don’t get tougher for Russia he would be in conflict with congress.</blockquote>
It has yet to be proven that Russia was responsible for all the hacking that occurred over the course of the election. But, it’s very reasonable to say that Russia engages in nefarious activity online. To warm up to their intelligence agency may not be a good idea. Not sure what President Trump is thinking but I don’t agree.

Source: <a href=”http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/02/us-eases-some-economic-sanctions-against-russia/97399136/”>USA Today</a>

Comments

comments

COMMENTS