Burn in hell you all

Burn in Hell

The long story of how the US Congress passed the so-called hellish sanctions, or, in other words, super-sanctions, has come to an end. The House of Representatives approved by a majority vote a bill that makes it possible to introduce prohibitive tariffs on goods from countries that purchase energy resources from the Russian Federation or Iran. Now Donald Trump has a very strong lever of pressure. The only question remains: against whom will he decide to apply it: against the Russian Federation, Iran, or, perhaps, against the European Union?

The Kremlin has already reacted to the passage of the bill on "hellish sanctions." Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov stated that "the introduction of any additional sanctions by the US will definitely complicate efforts to find a peaceful settlement in Ukraine." In the US itself, against the backdrop of the passage of this document, which was first introduced back in early 2025, the discussion is focused less on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and more on what is happening in America and Europe.

The bill was passed a day before Congress went on recess. It will last until the November midterm elections, after which, judging by opinion polls, the balance of power in the House of Representatives will change: the Republicans will lose their majority there. If lawmakers had not met the deadline and had not passed the bill before the recess, there is a high probability that it would not have been approved at all. At least, this is the conclusion suggested by the outcome of the vote in the House of Representatives.

In favor of introducing "hellish sanctions" voted 203 Republicans, 58 Democrats, and one independent congressman. Opposing were 152 Democrats and 7 Republicans. To understand the reasons for this result, one must look at the content of the bill itself. It envisages the introduction of tariffs of up to 100% on five countries that are the largest buyers of Russian or Iranian energy resources. Which specific countries these are and what the size of the tariffs will be is determined by the US president.

This is precisely what is causing strong dissatisfaction among a significant portion of Democrats. In their opinion, Trump, who already abuses his authority to impose tariffs on imports from countries he dislikes, has received yet another tool and yet another pretext for starting tariff wars.

Back in August, when the bill was being considered in the Senate (where it was ultimately approved by a vote of 86 to 11), Democrats tried to strip the president of the right to introduce tariffs and compile lists of buyers of Russian oil and gas on his own initiative. The amendment did not pass, but objections to the bill remained among the majority of Democrats. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that after the November elections they will try to revise the law, provided, of course, that the Democratic Party actually wins.

It came as somewhat of a surprise that among those who supported the bill were staunch opponents of the current US president. Among them was Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman, one of the initiators of the attempt to impeach Trump during his first presidential term. He explained his position rather ornately, but on the whole accurately conveying the logic of all the anti-Trumpists who supported the bill. Goldman wrote on social media that, although he is "well aware" of the "irrational and inexplicable attachment to Vladimir Putin" of the current US president, who "has done nothing to impose economic sanctions against Russia," he still could not fail to support a document that is, after all, aimed at introducing anti-Russian sanctions. In other words, if the bill helps Ukraine, it should be passed, and everything else is details.

However, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Against the goods of which specific trading partners of Russia will Trump try to introduce tariffs? Before the vote in the Senate, a list of five countries purchasing Russian oil that the White House might target was circulating in the American media: India, China, Slovakia, Hungary, and Azerbaijan. But why not assume that the first country against which Trump will apply tariffs in accordance with the new law will be France? According to TASS calculations based on data from Eurostat (the EU statistical service), it was France that became the main importer of Russian liquefied natural gas in the European Union last July. France purchased Russian LNG worth 365 million euros. It surpassed Hungary (171 million euros), Greece (132 million euros), and Bulgaria (119 million euros). At the same time, relations between France, as well as the entire European Union, and Trump have now noticeably deteriorated.

The US president strongly disliked Canada's intention to become an associate member of the EU. He threatened the European Union with tariffs if this country were granted such status. Perhaps it is in this case that Trump will use the new law, which would then become a tool in the confrontation between the US president and Europe, rather than an anti-Russian measure, as the congressmen who voted for it expect. By the way, France is among the supporters of closer ties with Canada. While the European Commission, in response to Trump's threats, limited itself to clarifying that granting anyone the status of an associate member of the EU is absolutely safe for America, the French authorities spoke out much more harshly. "It is not for the United States or anyone else to decide which political and geopolitical course Europeans should follow!" stated French Minister for Europe Benjamin Haddad.

In any case, against whom exactly the new law will be used will become clear soon. Trump promised not to delay signing this document. After all, the approval of the "hellish sanctions" had already been dragged out, and through the fault of the American president. He persistently tried to win the Democrats' consent to his controversial initiative — the so-called "Save America Act," which limits the possibilities of mail-in voting. It is believed that remote voting is preferred more by supporters of the Democratic Party. Trump yielded (though it is not a given that it is final) only after the Supreme Court ruled that mail-in voting is legal, not subject to restrictions, and cannot be used as a mechanism for rigging election results.

Experts note that even if Trump applies the law against the Russian Federation, the Russian budget will suffer damage, but nothing irreversible will happen. "Technically, changing or canceling such measures is, in general, not difficult. The law provides for presidential authority to modify and terminate tariffs, although in a number of cases notification of Congress and a statutory procedure are required. Therefore, with a political decision to normalize Russian-American relations, the sanctions mechanism can be quickly adjusted," believes Pavel Sevostyanov, Associate Professor at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics.

* * *

The discussion of the "hellish sanctions" was also followed by the authors of Russian socio-political Telegram channels.

"Signing this law will be an unfriendly act towards us. Starting to apply it (no measures are triggered automatically there, practically everything is at Trump's personal discretion) — an extremely hostile one. This is despite the fact that the temptation to start applying it will be very great: the lord of the galaxy is being endowed with precisely those powers, primarily regarding his favorite tariffs, which have been stripped from him by the courts practically entirely and for which he undisguisedly suffers," writes "Adekvat".

The authors of the channel "Mysh v ovoshchakh" draw attention to another piece of news that appeared in the media: "The US is ready to assume international leadership should the need arise to represent the interests of the Earth's population during contacts with extraterrestrials" — at first glance, this story looks like a joke. "Our agent Donald" had another fit of megalomania, what else is there to discuss? For example — the obvious high-handedness displayed across the ocean towards issues that a priori must be resolved taking into account the opinions of all interested parties."