Hot Marathon in the Background of a Cold Confrontation

While it’s still not known for certain what happened during the marathon in Boston and who is behind the incident — be it an international organization or some kind of local terrorist group — someone was determined to ruin the Boston Marathon, an athletic celebration and a patriotic day. It is understood that Obama ended up in a very unfavorable position; now everyone has started comparing him to George W. Bush. The ex-president saved America with his strict ways of dealing with terrorists, and now, even though Obama has taken out Osama, the acts of terror continue.

Of course, the events of Monday were, thankfully, nowhere near as damaging as those of 9/11; it is not worth exaggerating the sensationalism of the event. True, there have been no explosions in the U.S. in the last 12 years, but there have been regular shootings. It’s not surprising that people with psychological problems, who have shot their fellow countrymen, would move on sooner or later to louder and more destructive weapons. Judging by the tone of the U.S. media, which casts its eyes abroad, mainly toward “radical Islam,” Americans just aren’t properly processing the situation. This must mean that the police already know where to look for the evildoer. Although volatizing patriotic panic is unavoidable, it is nearly certain that no one sees anything like a jihad on world terrorism coming.

One remarkable detail worth pointing out is the history of the competition itself. The marathon, as everyone knows, traces back to the Greco-Persian War and the sealing of the heroic Greek victory over the horde of Xerxes. A soldier ran the distance of the modern-day marathon to tell all of Athens the great news about the defeat of the Persian troops. It would seem that, if we really wanted to, we could make a risky association; but, understandably, no one does.

And that means that the act of terrorism doesn’t really play a large role in domestic American politics. If these terrorists don’t turn out to be connected to al-Qaida, then none of this will affect the situation in Afghanistan. I doubt that the conflict in Syria will be connected to the explosion in order to avoid casting a shadow over Washington’s diplomacy in the Middle East. Traditional opposition groups will admonish Obama, but in the future they will try to make it seem as if the events in Boston hadn’t made an impact on the internal agenda of the White House. It is also a waste of time to wait for some kind of change in Russian-American relations. Of course, Vladimir Putin has already spoken out about his readiness to help Americans investigate the tragic events. It’s not just a friendly gesture, but also brings to mind Putin’s call to Bush offering aid and condolences after 9/11. The question of whether or not Russian and American “war lists” will just continue, however, is still open.

I will remind you that this past Friday the U.S. secretary of the treasury published the first version of the Magnitsky List, containing 18 names. There are no names of major Russian politicians on the list, only third-level prosecutors, investigators and judges. American papers support the fact that there is another, secret part of the list, which includes the name of the leader of the Chechen Republic, Razman Kadyrov; however, since the list is secret, no one has seen it.

Naturally, the initiators of this affair, congressmen and senators, have already expressed their indignation at the cautiousness of this administration. Senator John McCain cannot hide his disappointment; those feelings are, I think, also growing in the representatives of the Russian opposition.

In turn, the Russian Duma made up its own list of 18 people. The list was mostly comprised of mid-level officials, as including first-level officials would send the wrong signal, as would insignificant names. For example, the list names people from former Vice President Dick Cheney’s inner circle, neoconservatives connected to McCain and less popular people in America, such as those who took part in the torture and illegal imprisonment of “terrorists” — but this isn’t just personal opinion.

It would be hard to say that Russia’s answer to the list won’t be answered by a subsequent list by Congress. Even if this maneuver by the Duma doesn’t heat up some anti-Russian fears, it could make the upcoming criminal trials rife with not-so-far-fetched political overtones. The congressmen, however, won’t be able to ignore these events, especially considering the “Marsh Case” or the “Kirovles Affair,” although they’ve somehow turned a blind eye to American influence on those issues more than once already.*

Creating the Magnitsky List was dangerous, because it contains no system of self-restraint. If one judge is condemned, then why not add others to the list who are just as bad? It is possible that Obama is disposed to ruining the relationship with Moscow forever. It seems, however, that not all congressmen, authors of the re-edited articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, hundreds of Russian and Western publicists, bilingual writers about Russia, and finally Garry Kasparov, Boris Nemtsov and many others are not on the same track as Obama. To add to that, McCain alone would be plenty to give Obama insomnia during the Kirovsky and Moskovsky Trials.

That is why it seemed yesterday that no one needed a Russian-American relationship that was anything but friendly. The global economic elites especially need it. They are so out of control that they’ve completely lost touch with the political process in some countries; the problem often arises from them thinking that they live in a totally different world — a castle in the clouds of their own idle dreams.

At the same time, policies that fight for empowerment or for useful change reflect that it is valuable for people to head companies in support of either human rights or strengthening the patriotic conscience. The ideological playing field is divided between those who answer “human rights!” and those who lobby for patriotism, but there is still another group, working toward creating these types of unwelcomed “lists.” On the doorstep with outstretched palms are numerous doubters, “friends of enemies” and “enemies of friends” … and perched on each of their lips are calls for higher morals and duty.

Although now even those who fight for friendship of both countries can’t choose which matter is more important, we will hope that all parties of the Russian-American rapprochement on either side of the Atlantic will not have to wait for another deafening explosion — maybe this time an atomic bomb in some far-away Asian country — to make up their minds.

* Translator’s Note: The Marsh Case has also been called the March of a Million and refers to an ongoing human rights issue that was sparked by the police beating of a 67-year-old woman (Turane Varzhabetyan) in Marsh Square in 2012 during a protest. The Kirovles Affair has to do with the ongoing case of Alexey Navalny, a lawyer and activist who is being persecuted by the Russian government for speaking out against Putin.