This event scores very low on constitutional damage (A=3.54) as it involves a presidential threat regarding foreign policy sanctions, which falls squarely within executive authority. Rule_of_law receives minimal score (1) only because sanctions policy involves legal frameworks, and separation (1) reflects normal executive foreign policy powers. The threat is highly reversible, not yet implemented, and represents routine presidential foreign policy posturing. The B-score (22.14) reflects moderate media attention around Trump-Russia-Ukraine dynamics but falls short of List B threshold. The event lacks any meaningful constitutional mechanism - it's a statement of potential future action, not actual policy implementation. This is classic foreign policy theater: presidential frustration expressed publicly about stalled negotiations, with sanctions threats as leverage tool. No institutional damage, no rights impact, no democratic erosion. Pure noise masquerading as consequential policy shift.