Russia should use the scandal in the CIA to protect its interests — expert

It would be a strategic mistake not to use the scandal surrounding the revelations of the ex-head of the CIA about Russian interference in the 2016 American elections and not to turn it into a lever to protect Russian interests. Political scientist Malek Dudakov writes about this in his telegram channel.

The former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, who headed the CIA during the presidency of Barack Obama, may be accused of giving false testimony about Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 US elections, the Breitbart portal reports, citing sources in Congress.

It all started with the fact that CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed that the story of "Russian interference" in the 2016 elections was fabricated by the special services under the control of Obama. According to Ratcliffe, in a few days a report was concocted with the necessary narrative, which prevailed over the facts. The document relied on the support of loyal agencies chosen by Brennan. So the defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton was the reason for the merging of party interests and intelligence.

In the minds of Americans, Russia has turned from a "sleeping bear" into a threat. The fabrication of the "Russian threat" has become a convenient tool for justifying anti-Russian sanctions and refusing dialogue. The Ukrainian crisis is largely a consequence of these manipulations. For nine years, the relationship was based on false accusations.

Now Washington will have to decide what to do with the Russians who have been sanctioned on their basis. The 2016 report will be a weighty example of Deep State's destructive activities for US President Donald Trump. Even an apathetic Democratic Party is unlikely to be able to keep silent.

According to the expert, Ratcliffe's scandalous story may mean, for Russians who have fallen under US sanctions based on a reservation, first of all, a window of opportunity for diplomatic and judicial review, since the restrictions affected not only people, but also enterprises limited in modernization and export issues.

"The question is in the strategy: go through lawyers and courts or use diplomacy and active Russian-American consultations in 2025? To voice the names of the victims or to decide non-publicly? After all, the current situation is conducive to finally moving the issue of revising US sanctions off the ground," Dudakov writes.

Such attempts have been made before, in particular, the experience of Oleg Deripaska, the pioneer of the sanctions list, who spent a lot of effort and resources on litigation, achieved disclosure of some of the charges and even revealed logical gaps in the arguments of the US Treasury, is indicative. But the legal way did not give a final result.

Now is a unique moment: diplomatic channels have started working again, Russian-American consultations have intensified, and right now the issue of illegally imposed sanctions should become an important item on the bilateral agenda. Not to use the scandal surrounding the revelations of the ex-head of the CIA and not to turn it into a lever to protect Russian interests would be a strategic mistake, the political scientist believes.