The conversation steered far off the original topic but I wanted to add some observation on how the international treaty works.
Many countries ratified treaty "with reservation(s)", that is the ratifying body, such as US Senate, doesn't agree to everything in the treaty and/or rejects particular protocol. So ratified State party to the treaty doesn't mean that they consent to the jurisdiction or agreed to be bound by the treaty in every respect. Some countries have constitutions that mandate domestic laws to preempt international laws.
Reservations to the treaty are rarely tested in court so the effect of the reservations is unclear, domestic courts may use reservations as a basis to reject the implementation of the treaty, while some court has held that the language of the treaty provides no basis for reservation of the treaty itself but allow each country to reject specific optional protocols.
Back in the U.S., it is not accurate to say that the US has agreed to every treaty it ratified (even without reservation). While the US constitution has granted a sole power to ratify the treaty to the Senate, Supreme Court has held since 1829 in Foster v. Neilson that even ratified treaty is treated as "laws of the land", non self-executing treaty is unenforceable without an implementing statute, that is enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. In other words, the US is free to pick and choose to enforce some provisions of the treaty and ignore others if it so wishes, and have done in many instances. At this point I have to agree with @bi4smooth .
So if the US as the model form of governance can freely ignore its obligation, why not Russia?