Sanctions against Russia - why and for whom they work. Why Russia has actually imposed sanctions on itself

: "Movchan, the Americans taught you badly in Chicago, you don't understand apples or economics!"; “What nonsense from Movchan! All these sanctions are only for the benefit of Russian farmers! ”; “Any true patriot of the state will choose the path of liberation from dependence”; “Western products are from the chemical industry! Let them eat themselves ”; "It is Moscow and St. Petersburg that eat imports, and we - only domestic" ...

Apparently it's really time to tell what I was taught in Chicago. Basically, I was taught to count to four - that is, to define the chain "motive" - \u200b\u200b"economic action" - "real result" - "side effects". This is what I do, often successfully.

For example, why are sanctions (action) usually imposed? To punish the enemy, to force him to make concessions (motive). How will a food ban punish the US or the EU? No way: there are no large companies in the US or the EU that supply more than 2-3% of their exports to the Russian Federation. They will redirect, and if they fail, they will lose 2-3% of sales (with seasonal price fluctuations of 20%, interannual - up to 25%, annual change in sales - 10-15%). Will they notice? Hardly. Only the logistics will become easier (real result). Who will notice? The distributors (Russian) will notice (this is a by-product) - they will lose more than half of their business; retailers will notice - the volume will fall, there is urgently nothing to replace it; citizens will notice - no matter how bad the Australian meat is, but those who buy it do not buy domestic meat. There will be no Australian - what will these fastidious buyers do? That's right - they will buy domestic, where to go. The demand for domestic meat will grow by 20-35%, and one should not think that the province, where there was no Australian meat, will not suffer: Moscow and St. Petersburg will come and drag the supplies over. What will this lead to? To the rise in prices for domestic meat; judging by the elasticity of this market - by 50-70 percent (this is the main by-product). It turned out, sanctions do not work against the enemy, but - work against the existing russian market! I may not mind getting hurt in the fight against the enemy, but if the enemy is neither cold nor hot ...

I'll tell you more. These evil US and EU will not lose their 2-3% of sales. They will sell them back to us through Kazakhstan or Belarus, or third countries, with the tags glued back. And we will buy, since we have a shortage of products (temporary, as you say, permanent, as I say). But - transportation, plywood, smuggling - costs money. So we will have the same products, but only more expensive. So, they - sold the same amount, we - bought the same, but expensive... This is a success.

Or maybe the sanctions are to protect our market? Help a Russian manufacturer? The idea is interesting. Only then why prohibit the import of products that we do not produce at all and will not? Whom do we help? Or does our government not know that our olive oil is not growing?

Well, well, we got excited with butter, but apples, meat and so on are growing here. Shall we protect? Let's try. To begin with, why is imported food so good in Russia? There are two options - either imported products are better and cheaper, or - food in our land does not grow in sufficient quantities. Agree, if this were not the case, the consumer would prefer domestic products, and in 15 years of rampant oil prices, blessed stability and nutritious money rain from the bowels of the Rosselkhozbank, there would already be so many domestic products (given our vast expanses) that the import itself would withered and died. And imports are growing every year.

So, we have two versions of "protection". Version one: imports are better and cheaper, they hamper domestic expensive and bad products. It is necessary to prohibit imports and help the domestic producer. And tell me, why on earth would this manufacturer, which yesterday could not do better and cheaper, in the absence of competition, suddenly improve the quality and lower the price? He can also produce more, but - worse and more expensive, there is no competition, and he could not even with competition! So, get ready for a general deterioration in quality and an increase in food prices! Do you think that's all? No, that's not all.

Let's say a domestic manufacturer accepted the challenge, invested money, and began to make significantly more food products (worse and more expensive, but still). Tell me, are sanctions forever? And when we defeat the West, and it, throwing cookies, yellow-blue swastikas and rainbow flags with six-pointed stars, runs away with its tail between its legs - will you lift the sanctions? Now imagine: a domestic manufacturer has built new capacities in order to produce even more, more expensive and even worse (it could have been better and cheaper earlier, but did not), and you canceled the sanctions! And better and cheaper products from the vanquished West came to the market again! Tell me, where will you find an idiot manufacturer who, in such a prospect, will invest at least a ruble in new capacities? Only perhaps - the state. So that later VEB would buy it in bankruptcy into its portfolio, with money borrowed in the West (the sanctions have already been lifted) or, more simply, taken from pension savings.

Didn't work with the first version. Then let's say that products from the West are worse and more expensive, but our enchanted manufacturer is simply not able to provide us with food, no matter what you do. (This version is, by the way, close to reality, of course, it's not about the manufacturer, but the business environment created by our government, corruption, the cost of credit, the lack of infrastructure, etc.). But if it cannot, then what are we defending? He still can't. Or will the price of money go down from the import ban, the infrastructure will grow, and the officials will stop taking bribes? It turns out - we just give the manufacturer the opportunity to raise prices by reducing the supply on the market?

By the way, many have the illusion that the small volume of domestic food production is the result of a conspiracy of distributors who simply do not allow the domestic manufacturer to turn around. This is, of course, a delusion. Distributors, in general, do not care whether it is an imported product or a local one. They would happily sell domestic products, setting up a barrier to imports - only if domestic ones brought a large margin (that is, it would be cheaper and / or better sold). If they do not do this, it means that domestic products are worse or more expensive. Of course, by banning the import of cars (not food, but clearly), we will increase sales of "Zhiguli". But "Zhiguli" will not get better - on the contrary, they will rise in price and become worse. It will be harmful for Russia, whatever one may say. And the West - the West will live without the Russian market.

So it looks like the West will not suffer as a result of these sanctions, prices will rise, quality will fall, and domestic production will not increase. Then why all this?

I think such a ban was invented especially for us. Have you ever seen crickets fighting in China? (Not for nothing, not for nothing that we fell in love with China so much). So, before the fight, the owner provokes the fighting crickets, painfully jabbing at them with a straw to cause aggression; and if the cricket gets tired and doesn't want to fight, he throws it up to the fan under the roof so that he gets scared and rushes at the enemy. Our government apparently decided that the light sanctions that the West is introducing against Russia do not arouse enough anger and desire in the Russian people to fight. Self-prohibition on food imports, refusal from olive oil, Mediterranean fish, rise in prices and shortages of meat and poultry should play the role of a straw for the people of Russia, inciting aggression and patriotism. And, judging by the reaction, it turns out.

The question remains - what to do with those who, even from a straw, are not ready to get into a fight? What kind of fan will be invented, and how is our government going to throw us there?

The US is tightening sanctions against the Russian Federation. In response to this, the Kremlin said that Russia does not want to enter the next "sanctions peak". Economist Dmitry Prokofiev tells about what kind of sanctions are being introduced and whether there is anything to respond to this in Moscow.

Sanctions as they are

Yesterday, the US Senate approved amendment S.722 on sanctions against Iran, agreed upon by the committees on banks and foreign affairs and introduced by the leader of the Republican majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, on June 12. The second chapter of the adopted bill contains a new package of sanctions against Russian Federation entitled "The Law on Counteracting Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia of 2017".

Now the bill will go to the House of Representatives of the Congress, from where, if approved, will be sent to the President of the United States for signature. In essence, the law combined the so-called McCain - Cardin bills (legislative consolidation of existing sanctions) and Krapo - Brown (significant expansion of sectoral and individual sanctions). The official wording states that sanctions are imposed “for violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Crimea, impudent cyberattacks and interference in<американские президентские> elections, as well as the ongoing aggression in Syria. "

The likelihood of the bill being passed by Congress is high, and it is likely to be passed by an overwhelming majority. Of course, in theory, Donald Trump can veto the law, but the balance of votes in both chambers makes it easy to overcome the president's veto. In addition, an attempt by the White House to resist congressional sanctions against the actions of the Russian government will be seen as evidence of the involvement of Trump and his entourage in behind-the-scenes deals with Moscow.

Why is it important?

The adopted bill not only significantly toughens the sanctions against Russia, but also significantly complicates the procedure for lifting them. The fact is that the current sanctions regime is based on five decrees of President Barack Obama. Until yesterday, these decrees could have been canceled by the same decrees of Donald Trump without appealing to the US Congress.

According to the new law, if the US President wants to take any action to weaken the sanctions and remove specific authorized physical and legal entities, then he will have to justify such actions in a special report to the specialized committees of both chambers, which will then have 30 days to discuss it and introduce either an approving or rejecting joint resolution (adopted without amendments and discussion at the plenary session). The President can veto a negative Congress resolution, but this is associated with serious political risks for him.

In fact, the bill gives Congress a full block on the lifting or mitigation of sanctions imposed "in response to the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation", as it is formulated in the document.

What is the difference with the previous "sanctions regime"?

Several sanctions packages at once - "Crimean", "Donbass", "hacker", "Syrian", "human rights" - are now combined into a single extended package.

Another fundamental innovation is the legislative binding of the “Donbass sanctions” to Russia's implementation of the 2015 and 2014 Minsk Agreements. Now no "exchange of Syria for Donbass" is legally possible. To lift the "Donbass sanctions" it is necessary to fulfill the Minsk Agreements, the key point of which is the restoration of control of Ukraine along its entire border.

There is one more important innovation. Back in 2014-2015, the United States adopted the "Act in Support of the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy and Economic Stability of Ukraine" ( the federal law No. 113–95 of April 3, 2014) and the "Act in Support of Freedom of Ukraine" of December 18, 2014 (Federal Law No. 113–272). Actions under these laws were left to the discretion of the US President, with the wording "the president can." Now the wording has been changed to “the president must”.

"Financial" question

The bill significantly expands and toughens sectoral sanctions, extending them to new sectors of the Russian economy. In addition to the financial, oil and defense sectors, it is proposed to extend restrictions on attracting debt financing to enterprises in the gas, metallurgical, mining, energy, railway and sea \u200b\u200btransport... Specific list of those included in the sanctions lists russian companies will, as now, be determined by the US Treasury Department.

The term for the allowable provision of debt financing is further reduced. For banks it will be 14 days instead of the current 30, for other sectors - 30 days instead of the current 90.

At the same time, the draft law contains a requirement and provides a legal opportunity to extend these restrictions to advance payments for export transactions and private placement of shares (most likely, the main objective these sanctions - "Rosneft"). It is proposed to extend restrictions on debt financing to the securities of the sovereign debt of the Russian Federation (sovereign Eurobonds and OFZs), and this, in principle, could have painful consequences for the Russian foreign exchange market. In parallel, restrictions are envisaged on the operations of financial institutions with US federal treasury bonds.

The criteria for the prohibition on the provision of technologies for deep-water drilling and oil production on the offshore shelf, including in the Arctic, as well as for the development of shale oil fields are being expanded (now the ban applies to any private companies where there is any property share of authorized individuals and legal entities).

"Personal question

Special attention should be paid to the measures introduced against, literally, “corrupt Russian actors; those seeking to evade sanctions”.

In relation to such "figures", for attempts to circumvent the sanctions regime through re-registration of companies to close relatives and associates of persons on the sanctions lists, assets and accounts are blocked and an entry ban to the United States is envisaged.

Why neither oil nor gas can save our economy In addition, a very strict restriction was introduced on investments in the construction, repair and maintenance of Russian export oil and gas pipelines, including the sale, leasing or provision of services, technologies, information and other support in excess of $ 1 million or more than $ 5 million within 12 months. The purpose of this restriction, apparently, is the investors, service companies and contractors of Gazprom, Rosneft and Novatek - all businessmen close to the management of these companies.

In addition, there was a restriction on private investment over $ 10 million in the privatization of state blocks of shares in Russian companies, "if it is carried out in the interests of government officials, their partners and relatives." Thus, Congress demonstrates that it has no illusions about the "privatization deals" of the Russian government and understands in whose interests they are being made.

Finally, a sensitive measure for Russian "corrupt actors" could be permission for the US Treasury to apply individuals measures to counter terrorism.

To this should be added the requirement for the President to provide the US Congress with annual reports on Russian oligarchs and their closeness to the political leadership, as well as the creation by the US Treasury of a special unit that will monitor and block the flows of illegal funds related to Russia in the US financial system.

How much will the sanctions affect the Russian economy?

But here not everything is clear. In fact, the short-term effect of the sanctions is small. Yes, Russia was fenced off from the world financial system, but the Russian economy does not need borrowed money now. The Russian economy is stagnating not because of sanctions, but because of its structure. The state deliberately squeezes out the majority of businesses from the market; accordingly, capital is looking for other markets. As the Russian economist Andrei Movchan wittily put it, the oil market imposed the main and only sanction against Russia.

The economy is shrinking dramatically, it began to stagnate since 2012, business does not want to develop anything new, but the Russian elite, which controls the country's raw materials, feels great. Over the past two years of stagnation, the incomes of the wealthiest part of Russians have grown by 10%, for three quarters of the population they have fallen by 20%, our compatriots are saving as they have never saved in the past five years, but this does not bother the authorities at all. On the contrary, the country's masters see the impoverishment of the population as a guarantee of the financial stability of the system - the demand for imports, and therefore for dollars, has sharply decreased, so there is no need to fear for the preservation of gold and foreign exchange reserves, since petrodollars continue to come to the country. Budget revenues have decreased, but they are not affected by the sanctions. On the other hand, the sanctions provide the authorities with an excellent political explanation for the economic recession taking place in the country, a recession that - attention - reduces the income of Russians, but does not affect the level of consumption and the quality of life of those who make decisions.

What can be the response to sanctions?

The Russian economy does not exceed two percent of the world economy, in terms of its place on the world technological and business map, Russia is an “oil and gas company”. The share of the Russian ruble in world turnover is tenths of a percent. Russia does not buy anything critical from America, it does not sell anything critical to it. That is, the United States will not be able to answer "in an economic sense".

Why are there so many poor in Russia? Nevertheless, Russia will respond, in strict accordance with the mocking statement of the remarkable Russian oligarch living in London: “The sanctions are there, the norms, the rights - what are they? We always had a norm - 125 grams of bread a day ...! This will be the answer to their sanctions ... ”. And so it will be: yachts, mansions in London, villas in Biarritz, accounts in Switzerland for the privileged elite and - “lowering the norm” for everyone else. True, 125 grams of bread will also not be available yet, in terms of the level and quality of consumption, Russia will drop even lower, around 2004, with a tendency towards a further drop in the income of all those who are not among those close to the exploitation and protection of raw materials.

According to Rosstat, the standard of living in Russia has been falling almost non-stop since October 2014. As a result, the decline exceeded 15%, and in April it accelerated threefold - to 7.6%.

Over the past 30 months, statistics only once recorded an increase in household income in real terms - in January 2017, which, however, was the result of a one-time payment to pensioners. Well, now, instead of paying pensioners, you can still watch TV, where the owners of American real estate will tell them about bad America.

What caused the new sanctions?

On Monday, June 12, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate agreed to tighten sanctions against Russia. So far, there is only an announcement of the agreement. The proposed restrictive measures should be introduced in the form of amendments to the bill on new sanctions against Iran. The sanctions are designed to punish Russia "for violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Crimea, insolent cyberattacks and interference in the American presidential elections, as well as the ongoing aggression in Syria," follows from the message published on the Senate website and the senator's statement John McCain, who was one of the authors of this initiative.

The bill introduces new sanctions against individuals, as well as certain sectors of the Russian economy. The initiative involves the translation of the Russian sanctions program from the jurisdiction of the president to the jurisdiction of the US Congress... In particular, the bill should combine the five decrees that President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia in response to “interference in the 2016 US presidential election and illegal actions in Ukraine,” and create a basis for tightening them.

Who will be affected by the new sanctions?

There are no details of specific measures yet. It is only known that new sectoral sanctions will affect key sectors of the Russian economy, including energy, mining, shipping, metallurgy and railways. The new financial sanctions ban US and third party investments in Russian sovereign bonds, lending to key sectors of the Russian economy, participation in the privatization of Russian state-owned companies, and investments in selected energy projects, the oil and gas sector and pipeline infrastructure.

New individual sanctions will be introduced against “Russian corrupt officials; persons seeking to violate the existing sanctions regimes; perpetrators of serious human rights violations; arms suppliers to the Bashar al-Assad regime; persons involved in malicious cyber attacks on public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions, carried out on behalf of the Russian authorities. " They will be banned from entering the United States, and their assets in the United States will be frozen. Restrictive measures will hit individuals, as well as those who conclude deals with enterprises of the Russian military-industrial complex and special services, including the FSB and the main department of the General Staff (formerly the GRU).

What else is the bill aimed at?

The bill is intended “Put additional pressure on the ability of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and those around him to transfer funds, stolen from the Russian state » ... In particular, it provides creation by the US Treasury of a special unit, which will monitor and block the flows of illicit funds related to Russia if these funds pass through the US financial system. The unit will work alongside U.S. embassy staff especially in Europe, as well as help them to interact with the authorities of these countries in the disclosure and blocking of illegal financial flows from Russia.

In addition, the document provides for an analysis of the economic dependence of the United States on Russian state-owned enterprises. The bill, among other things, provides for the allocation of funds to the State Department, the Global Engagement Center, and the US Agency for international development (USAID) to support democratic institutions in Europe to "fight against Russian aggression, which takes the form of corruption, propaganda and other types of political interference."

What is the further procedure?

Sanctions against Russia must be formally introduced as amendments, after which the document must be approved at the general meeting of the Senate, then in the House of Representatives, and after that the document will go to the signature of President Donald Trump. As noted by Dow Jones Newswires, even if the Senate approves these amendments, it is not completely clear how the House of Representatives will behave. There is no information about the intentions of the presidential administration to approve the bill: the press service of the White House did not comment on the question of whether Trump would sign this document.

According to supporters of the amendment, even if Trump refuses to sign the document, they intend to overcome the presidential veto at any cost and legitimize anti-Russian sanctions. According to the US Constitution, within ten days after receiving the bill for signature, the president has the right to veto, namely, return the document with his objections to Congress. Successful overcoming of veto in each chamber of parliament requires support at least 67% of deputiesto accept the original document bypassing the president. The president also has the possibility of legislative maneuver, the so-called pocket veto. It occurs if, after ten days of being with the president, the document formally cannot be returned to Congress, since the legislators have gone on vacation. In this case, the bill is rejected permanently, and legislators have to go through the introduction and approval process again.

The vague "hiatus" wording in the Constitution allowed presidents to regularly use "pocket vetoes" even when MPs appointed a special attorney to receive presidential messages between sessions. During the existence of the United States, presidents have vetoed 2,500 times, 1,000 of which are “pocket vetoes”. Congress was able to successfully overcome conventional vetoes only 111 times out of 1506 cases (7%).

Despite this, the bill will put the president in a difficult situation, said Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the Valdai Club, head of the Foreign Policy research agency. In the event of a veto, senators will gain political points for themselves by showing that Trump is "following the Russians", and forcing him to abandon his own plan for expanding Iranian sanctions. “Given the temperament of Trump and the antagonistic style he has chosen, he will surely get involved in this fight, regardless of the drop in his ratings,” emphasizes Sushentsov.

Why are the sanctions tied to the "Iranian" bill?

Tightening russian sanctions congressmen plan to issue an amendment to the bill on new sanctions against Iran because of its missile program. The document was introduced on May 23 by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Bob Corker. A few weeks earlier, Corker himself had argued that a party-wide proposal to legalize Russian sanctions as law had been postponed pending the results of an investigation into alleged Kremlin interference in the 2016 elections. By mid-June, Corker had changed his position and approved the introduction of relevant amendments to the draft law on Iran.

According to Sushentsov, linking Russian sanctions to Iranian law is "political foxing", since the subject matter of the documents is quite different, but individually they would hardly have passed the vote. Thus, pressure on Iran is an important and sensitive topic for Trump, Democrats oppose tougher sanctions, while Republicans do not want to argue with the president about Russia once again. "Probably, such a sophisticated combination came to mind of the lobbyists of Saudi Arabia, who are interested in putting pressure on Iran and in building a new" axis of evil "between Moscow and Tehran," Sushentsov explained to RBC.

The senators' actions do not mean that improving relations with Russia is "completely off the agenda" in Washington, said Jack Goldstone, a political scientist at George Mason University. “This only means that in order to lift the sanctions, Moscow will be required to cooperate even more on the Minsk agreements, on cyber attacks and other politically sensitive issues,” the political scientist said in an interview with RBC. According to Sushentsov, in the worst case, Trump himself can lead a wave of confrontation with Moscow, but only when he is completely paralyzed politically. Until then, the president's struggle with his establishment plays a tactical rather than strategic role and international relationships here they are in the background, Sushentsov is sure.

Why do senators want to codify sanctions?

The fixation of certain sanctions programs at the level of laws (can also be approved by presidential decrees) is due to the fact that the congressmen want to retain control over their observance or the right to demand it from the president, Erich Ferrari, the head of the Washington-based law firm Ferrari and Associates, which specializes in sanctions, explained to RBC. “It is possible that by passing the law, Congressmen want to hedge against the risks that the president will not properly enforce such sanctions,” he says. Goldstone agrees with Ferrari: "The Senate no longer believes that Trump is able to act sensibly and firmly against Russia, and therefore seeks to make sanctions a law that the president cannot repeal, unlike decrees."

Earlier, the US Congress has already passed laws that either directly imposed sanctions against certain countries, or called on the president to do so. This was the case in the case of restrictive measures against Iran (2010), Cuba (1992) and the DPRK (2016), the lawyer recalls. The president cannot lift congressional sanctions, but he has broad powers to administer and enforce them, Ferrari argues. Therefore, even if Trump cannot completely lift such sanctions, he can postpone or slow down their introduction through the Ministry of Finance, the expert concluded.

What do the Russian authorities think about this?

When asked what is Moscow's reaction to such plans of the Senate, the presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov replied: "Negative"... According to him, the Kremlin is monitoring how the situation unfolds in the United States with tougher sanctions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declined to comment on such plans in the United States. “What will I react to every sneeze? I'm not a medical expert, ”he said.
[RBC]

Something about the consequences offhand:

Only this one: "New financial sanctions ban US and third party investments in Russian sovereign bonds" - will cause the flight of speculators from the ruble and the collapse of the carry trade pyramid. The “strong ruble” bubble, which the Bank of Russia is diligently inflating, will burst. And then - either the dollar / ruble rate will skyrocket, or you will have to part with Russia's gold and foreign exchange reserves.

Blow to the faces "Involved in corrupt privatization deals for the sale of Russian state assets" - this is a blow to all the big people from Putin's oligarchy Abramovich, Deripaska, Potanin, Usmanov and other yacht owners will be hit. Roma Abramovich just bought real estate in New York.

Sanctions against "Russian corrupt officials" - hello to Dimon, Usmanov, Mikhelson and other persons involved in numerous investigations by Navalny.

"The creation by the US Treasury of a special unit" is, first of all, the officially announced search for Putin's money.

The sanctions "against arms suppliers to the Bashar al-Assad regime" are a blow to the entire Russian arms trade.

To punish “those guilty of serious human rights violations” - a blow to those who like to screw at peaceful protests, judges, cops, etc.

New sectoral sanctions

What is the difference between this order of imposing sanctions?

First of all, these are US sanctions, which will be imposed without coordination and reaching a "consensus" with the countries of Europe, which Obama the peacekeeper was stubbornly doing. Italian and German politicians bought up by Putin at the root will not be able to interfere. Nobody will ask them anything. At the same time, European financial and other institutions will be forced to comply with sanctions, under the threat of themselves falling under sanctions in the United States, as violators of the sanctions regime.

Could something get in the way?

The Lower House of Congress itself is already. Apparently the senators decided to strengthen and expand the law of the congressmen and proposed their own. There should be no opposition in Congress as a whole. The only possible thing is that the case may be slightly delayed.

Sushentsov hopes in vain for Trump's opposition. Trump cannot quarrel with the Senate because of Putin - he is already .. And the Senate will vote for impeachment.

Philosophical

Once upon a time there were Russian oligarchs. Due to theft and meanness they rose from rags to riches. We have become the richest people in the world. We bought ourselves palaces all over the world, airplanes and the largest yachts. They already considered themselves aristocrats of world importance. They lived well and thanked Putin ...

And suddenly Putin was fucked up. He began to fight with the whole world. Like that old woman from a fairy tale who wanted to become the Lady of the Sea and so that the Golden Fish herself was on her parcels. In the fairy tale, it all ended with a return to the broken trough. And these oligarchs will have to sit at this trough. In short, isn't it time to ride the National Leader on a gun carriage, with all the honors and sorrow? Well, then put another one, make peace with the whole world and live beautifully ourselves as before. Abramovich, Usmanov and Potanin don't need this fucking Crimea together with the ghoul Assad.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives approved a bill on new sanctions against Russia in response to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and Moscow's interference in last year's US presidential election. The Senate will almost certainly approve this bill, because this is a version of the amendments that were initiated by the Senate. They only made small changes.

As an expression of congressional dissatisfaction with the Trump administration's sympathies for Russia, this bill is significant. What is less clear is whether he will actually increase the pressure on the Russians. It is even less clear whether this pressure will lead to changes in Russia's behavior.

First of all, it should be said that there is a big difference between the sanctions enshrined in legislation and the sanctions enacted. For understandable and incomprehensible reasons, all sanctions laws - including this one - give executive power the right to act at its own discretion and freedom of action when applying them. Even the most severe restrictive measures presuppose the possibility of their alternative interpretation by representatives of the executive authorities, who are doing their best to find such an opportunity.

For example, although this bill provides an opportunity to oppose the president who wants to lift the current US sanctions against Russia unilaterally, it only spelled out a procedure by which administration decisions can be preliminarily reviewed and discussed in Congress. All this is good and important, but it is unlikely to become an insurmountable barrier. In fact, as former President Obama demonstrated with regard to the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015 (similar to the "Russian amendments" in the document, it was supposed to check any agreements with Iran in Congress), in a vote, even a minority of lawmakers can prevent the presidential initiative from being rejected. Given the pliability and pliability of the Republican majority in Congress, Trump may well gain the votes necessary to ensure that his decision on sanctions against Russia is not overturned.

Context

New sanctions will surely lead to a crash

Anti-Russian sanctions are good as long as they don't concern us!

Sanctions quarreled between Europe and America

International cooperation on the "Russian issue", especially with Europe, is also an important factor. In an ideal world, this bill would be the start of a process in which Europe, with US assistance, would develop its own complementary measures. But the Department of State lacks the high-ranking politicians who tend to run such campaigns. Europe is understandably unhappy with its relationship with the United States (exacerbated by Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and his policy of threats against everything from Iran to NATO and trade). Given all this, it is unlikely that any kind of international cooperation will begin on this front anytime soon, although it would clearly serve the common interests of the United States and Europe.

If this law is implemented, Russia will find itself in a difficult situation, but this does not threaten the fall of the regime. This is normal, since the purpose of these sanctions is to deter Russia from further unacceptable actions in Eastern Europe. Or, for that matter, in the 2018 midterm elections. The sanctions would contain the expansion of the international presence of Russian energy companies in emerging markets by limiting their ability to do business with US firms. They could also reduce the activity of business relations with Russia in general, especially if Europe gets involved. And hopefully these measures (as well as Washington's demonstration of its decisiveness) will convince the Russian president Vladimir Putin is that even if he has supporters in the White House, he must negotiate a long-term solution to the crisis in Ukraine.

Of course, companies and countries can themselves interpret sanctions broadly, even if the law is not strong enough. But the real effect of the sanctions and the real work to suppress the activities of Russia, contrary to the interests of the United States around the world, lies in the actions of the executive authorities and transparency. The legislative power should monitor this. And in this regard, only time will tell if this is the start of a new campaign or just a small problem for Moscow.

Bloomberg, a leading provider of financial information to businesses, says the US has no room to impose new sanctions on Russia. Despite the fact that the Americans threaten them in connection with the conflict over the Syrian problem, this is nothing more than a bluff.

According to Bloomberg, despite the message from Washington about the introduction of new sanctions as a way of putting pressure on Moscow, US Secretary of State John Kerry did not provide any details, which is suspicious in itself. In addition, at the summit in Brussels, the EU countries did not agree on toughening the sanctions regime.

Recall that in Europe at the moment, more and more negative attitude towards sanctions against our country is being formed. Many even directly demand that they be canceled, since the sanctions regime interferes with doing business and developing the economy, which is why it is not the Russians with Putin that suffer, but local producers.

Bloomberg experts also speak very harshly about the sanctions, albeit in a slightly different vein. Michael Kofman, a researcher at the Kennan Institute in Washington, says that "Washington has the right to impose sanctions, but there is no one left in Russia to impose them on, except perhaps a janitor in the Kremlin."

According to him, the sanctions against the financial sector and individual Russians have completely exhausted themselves.

In addition, recently the United States was forced to partially lift restrictions on Rosoboronexport in order to obtain spare parts for Mi-17 helicopters of the Afghan Air Force - that is, the Americans also frankly suffer and are burdened by their own sanctions wars.

Considering all of the above, Bloomberg is confident that the United States will not introduce really serious sanctions against Russia: it is difficult, unprofitable, and the American authorities actually have no opportunity to do so.

Theoretically, the agency's experts argue, Washington could prohibit the purchase of Russian government bonds or disconnect Russia from the SWIFT interbank messaging system, but the consequences of such actions for the economies of both Europe and the United States, and the whole world, can be extremely unpleasant.

At the same time, in the spring, both Bloomberg and a number of specialized publications and Western experts in the field of economics and finance unanimously said that Russia had successfully overcome the sanctions.

Moreover, they affected its economy for the better. However, the American authorities, it seems, do not even hear their own specialists - and in connection with the situation in Syria, they are not ready either for constructive action, or even for negotiations, but only for threats.

Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Washington intended to completely spoil relations with Russia, every day talking about the introduction of new sanctions.

"The impression is that there are no other issues besides the one facing the US administration, apparently, the task is to finally destroy relations with the Russian Federation, so that later long years in order to restore them no longer. She does not set herself any other goals, "Ryabkov said.

At the same time, according to him, Moscow - in contrast, as we see from Bloomberg messages, from Washington - has plenty of ways to respond to the new US sanctions. Ryabkov expressed the opinion that this answer would be asymmetric and quite weighty.

“If the United States, contrary to common sense and experience, which is already painful enough for itself, nevertheless takes the path of further increasing sanctions measures, I assure you, there will be steps in our arsenal that will respond rather painfully. American policy in the Russian and European directions as a whole, "the deputy foreign minister said.

As for the Russian experts, they do not disagree with the Western ones, believing that the new sanctions will do more harm to the Western economy than the Russian one.

The General Director of the Center for Political Information Alexei Mukhin believes that the negative consequences are already great, and the West has somewhat "played": "So far, the Europeans have had a painful experience. Our food counter-sanctions are quite effective, judging by the reaction of the business community and Europe. North, Central and Eastern Europe experienced a terrible shock because of the sanctions. Western Europe to a lesser extent, but judging by the speeches of French farmers and Italian entrepreneurs, such a measure was quite sensitive. It seems that the guys have already played with these sanctions, and they do not realize that it is the stupid sanctions policy that Washington has imposed on the EU that is one of the hindering reasons for the development of the European economy. In today's globalized world, you cannot shoot yourself in the foot and not feel pain. "