US Threatens Russia with New 'List' War

Is there a direct relationship between the U.S. Department of State’s threats against Russia in Snowden’s case and its threats against our country in the Magnitsky case?

Recall that after the Tver Court found the deceased lawyer guilty of tax evasion in the amount of half a billion rubles, Department of State spokeswoman Jen Psaki expressed disappointment with the verdict and warned that it would not go unnoticed. In particular, the topic of potentially expanding the notorious Magnitsky List, which includes Russian officials who are banned from entering the U.S., was raised at a Congressional hearing. Republican Senator John McCain warned, “We could get tougher … and make some more Russians feel some pain.”

Earlier, the same Psaki stated the consequences for Russia in the event that the fugitive former CIA employee Edward Snowden leaves the transit area of the Sheremetyevo Airport and flies away to another country. Of course, you can sneer at McCain, who believes that a ban on entry into the U.S. will make Russian residents “feel some pain.” You can laugh at the inadequate senator, who was once the Republican Party’s presidential candidate.

It would probably be wrong to associate the possible expansion of the Magnitsky List with “consequences” for Russia mentioned by the U.S. Department of State in connection with the Snowden case. At the same time, the trend in U.S. sanctions against Moscow seems obvious. On the one hand, the Department of State recognizes that “there are a lot of issues that we [Moscow and Washington] work together on.” On the other hand, the State Department threatens Russia because of Snowden and Magnitsky. The State Department uses the old habitual international relations policy of “stick and carrot,” then states with surprise that the tactic is not working on Russia.

There is an impression that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his subordinates live in different time dimensions. While Kerry is preparing President Barack Obama’s upcoming September visit to Moscow and, together with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, is looking for solutions to divisive issues, his subordinates behave as though they are living in the Cold War era. They are convinced that their direct and veiled threats will affect Moscow’s position. However, this could be a good cop/bad cop approach, with Kerry playing as the good cop and his subordinates taking the role of the bad cop.

How should we react to this spectacle? Should we be indignant over U.S. threats of sanctions, or should we take a step back and calmly observe the American hysteria? I think in this situation, the Russian authorities will take a break and will not be hasty with counterthreats. Besides, the White House discovered long ago that Russia responds to U.S. lists with its own lists, and political warnings only cause Moscow to cut the agenda for Russian-U.S. relations.

There is no point in discussing the fairness of Tver Court’s verdict in the Magnitsky case. But it was a Russian court, and if Magnitsky’s lawyers do not agree with the verdict, they can appeal to the appropriate Russian authorities. However, U.S. politicians have no business threatening Russia with sanctions because of the court’s verdict on the sole basis that they do not agree with it. The Old World does not want to acknowledge that the U.S. is not omnipotent, and its politicians’ anger frightens fewer and fewer countries. This clearly manifested in the situation with Snowden when, in spite of Washington’s grumbling, several countries agreed to give the former CIA employee political asylum.

When congressmen like McCain seriously believe that while ruling on high-profile cases a Russian court will take into account what the U.S. will say about the verdict, it only demonstrates the psychological inadequacy of those specific U.S. lawmakers. On the other hand, every insane asylum has its Napoleon, who cannot be convinced that he has no relation to the great commander.