Four years and three months have passed since that significant day, when then-President Barack Obama, speaking before the US Congress, proudly declared: “Last year, when we and our allies worked hard to impose sanctions (on Russia), some That Mr Putin’s aggression was an example of mastery of strategy and strength. But today America is strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, and its economy is torn to shreds. ”

Since then, Washington has not stopped and did not give back. The sanctions expanded and deepened, they began to be distributed to any foreign banks that dared to do business with Russian companies and businessmen on the black list. Since 2017, new sanctions have been introduced - for Russia's mythical intervention in the US presidential election. Then there were separate sanctions against the "Nord Stream - 2".

Then - for the poisoning of the spy violin in London (with terrifying wording "for the use of chemical weapons"). Finally, most recently, on March 15, the United States, Canada and the European Union once again expanded the sanctions lists in connection with the incident in the Kerch Strait, when Russian border guards stopped the provocation of the Ukrainian military trying to break into Russia's territorial waters, and, especially touching, “ in connection with the fifth anniversary of the annexation of the Crimea ".

In other words, the sanctions were not even imposed for the steps taken by Russia, but for any incidents in which Russia could be blamed without bothering to search for evidence. If, for example, tomorrow an asteroid fell on Washington, the surviving congressmen would most likely blame the Kremlin and Putin personally for this - provided, of course, that the celestial body would not fall directly into the Capitol.

In any case, this impression was created by all who followed the processes unfolding in Washington. Yes, President Donald Trump seemed to be showing a desire to improve relations with our country (“good relations with Russia are good, not bad”), but not only did not cancel the sanctions, but also introduced new ones. Of course, not on their own initiative, but on the initiative of the congress, but the fact remains.

Pontius Pilate also did not give Jesus into the hands of the Sanhedrin, not out of personal dislike for the wandering preacher, but for reasons of political expediency, but entered the story like a man who "washed his hands." In addition, the Congress adopted a special bill “On Counteracting US Opportunities through Sanctions” in 2017, which not only forbade the president to lift existing restrictions, but also obliged the US Treasury to introduce new measures against Russian companies and citizens every six months.

The picture is very simplistic: the congress earned points by tightening US policy towards Russia, promoting more and more new sanctions, and the president, who was “under suspicion” because of Muller’s investigation, did not resist too much. He already had many other concerns.

But Muller’s investigation was completed, and not at all in the way that professional Russophobes and trampon-haters on Capitol Hill would have wanted. Very soon, the 400-page report of the special prosecutor will be published and uploaded to the network, so that everyone can be sure: there was no collusion between Trump and the Kremlin.

Accidentally or not, it was precisely at this time that the congress first began to doubt (even if in a low voice and with an eye on) the correctness of the chosen way of pressure on Russia with the help of sanctions.

“All the harsh talk about the need to punish Russia for interfering in the elections in the US in 2016 breaks about reality: the congressional enthusiasm for additional sanctions is falling,” writes Bloomberg.

Concern hawks in Congress caused by the fate of two bills against Russia, which, not being adopted, received the high-profile name "Sanctions from Hell." The first bill is called DASKA - "On the Protection of American Security against Kremlin Aggression."

Its authors are the two main Russophobes of Capitol Hill - Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina) and Bob Menendez (Democrat from New Jersey). The draft law was developed last summer, but was submitted to the Congress only in mid-February, shortly before the findings of the Muller Commission became known.

Among other things, DASKA introduces sanctions related to supporting the development of oil resources in Russia, as well as against Russian state-owned energy projects in the field of LNG outside the Russian Federation.

In the original version, strict sanctions measures against state-owned banks of Russia were prescribed in the draft law, they were relaxed in the February edition, but the possibility was left to impose restrictions on any Russian bank - at the discretion of the US President. In this regard, DASKA obliges the president to "establish the rules" of sanctions against Russia's sovereign debt within 90 days after the adoption of the law. It is easy to see that with the help of this bill, the Congress literally twists its hands to the head of the executive branch, directly encroaching on the responsibility of the president.

The second bill is called DETER - Defending Elections against Trolls from the Enemy Regimes Act (“On the Protection of Elections from Trolls of Hostile Regimes”). Russian translation may seem funny, but it should be borne in mind that the notion of “trolling” in English was originally interpreted as “trolling” (troll in English), and later gained a new meaning - provocations on the Internet aimed at kindling conflicts. That is, the purpose of the DETER bill is to protect against Internet provocateurs.

DETER requires the Director of National Intelligence of the United States to report to Congress about any foreign interference within 60 days after the federal election. The bill is of a general nature, but Russia has a special place in it.

“If Russia is found to have intervened in the elections,” Bloomberg writes, “then sanctions will be imposed on the politicians of this country, its energy and defense sector. Sanctions may also apply to government bonds and bonds issued by companies after the adoption of the law. ”

The DETER bill was drafted by two senators - Republican Marc Rubio from Florida and Democrat Chris van Hollen from Maryland. Thus, like DASKA, this bill is the fruit of the union of two parties, which, it would seem, should increase its chances of passing through the congress. However, as journalists found out, Marco Rubio is not particularly enthusiastic about the fate of this bill.

“These days we face a slight fatigue of sanctions,” Rubio admitted to Bloomberg. “I hope we will manage to get more people (to support the bill. - KB ).”

Many lawmakers, Bloomberg writes, still want Russia to face more serious consequences of its actions “in the US and other countries”, but there is no consensus in Congress about how to send the right signal to the Kremlin. Indecision is exacerbated by two factors: concern about the unforeseen economic consequences for the United States and the difficulty of passing through Congress, the lower house of which is controlled by the Democrats, and the upper one by the Republicans, bills that do not enjoy the support of the President.

Of course, it would be naive to believe that these difficulties will force the hawks and Russophobes of Capitol Hill to change the sanctions weapon to the olive branch of the world. But they are ready to make small concessions: for example, Senator van Hollen specifically emphasizes that the new version of the DETER bill specifically includes a clause allowing the president to abandon sanctions in the interests of “national security”. This innovation, which effectively negates the 2017 bill “On Counteracting US Opponents through Sanctions,” is considered by senators as an “emergency valve”, which should increase the chances of passing the bill through Congress.

Do you think van Hollen and Mark Rubio were forced by a sudden waking conscience? Maybe they decided that they were putting too much pressure on the president and that he should have at least an illusion of influence on foreign policy, which was already usurped by the congress? No matter how wrong!

The real reason for the emergence of this clause was the closed report of the US Treasury, which came into the hands of the same Bloomberg agency in early February. The authors of this report, after analyzing the possible consequences of expanding sanctions on sovereign eurobonds of the Russian Federation and on federal loan bonds, came to the conclusion that the potential extension of US sanctions on sovereign Russian debt and related derivatives could hit not only the Russian economy, but also harm US investors.

“The proliferation of sanctions may limit the competitiveness of large US management companies and potentially lead to negative side effects for global financial markets and companies,” the report said.

In other words, by extending sanctions against Russia, US lawmakers shoot at their feet. Games with sanctions led to the fact that American businessmen and companies, even if not directly connected with Russia, were under attack. One can explain this amazing fact as much as possible with the peculiarities of the modern global economy, but it is unlikely that voters and sponsors of Democrats and Republicans will be interested in what macroeconomic processes their share dividends decreased or the gallon of fuel at the gas station went up.

The most far-sighted politicians on Capitol Hill understand this very well, so their rhetoric is gradually changing.

“Sanctions can often be double-edged weapons,” said Republican Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson, chairman of the national security committee of the upper house of congress. “Therefore, we really need to step back a bit and assess what situation we are in and what we can really do.”

Great thought, senator. It is a pity only a little late.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.