Russian-American ballerina Ksenia Karelina has pleaded guilty to treason charges after she was arrested for donating money to a charity supporting Ukraine.
Russian prosecutors are seeking a 15-year sentence after the security services accused Ms Karelina of collecting money that was used to purchase tactical supplies for the Ukrainian army.
She was detained by authorities in Yekaterinburg, about 1,600km (1,000 miles) east of Moscow after a family visit in February.
The sentence comes one week after Russia and the West carried out the largest prisoner exchange since the Cold War, where 24 people jailed in seven different countries were exchanged.
Ms Karelina’s lawyer said the prosecutors’ request for a 15-year sentence in a penal colony was too severe as the defendant had cooperated with the investigation.
Mikhail Mushailov also said it was “impossible” for Ms Karelina to have been included in the recent prisoner exchange, because an exchange can only happen once the court verdict comes into force.
What makes you think this is different here? I don’t know her, but I think 15 years of penal colony for a 45€ donation is absolutely ridiculous. Especially, as the underlying war of aggression is - as we hopefully both agree?? - wrong. Why you choose to defend this is beyond me.
Your words:
He’s in violation of the law just as much as this ballerina. One of them you defend, the other not.
Then you should have a critical opinion on Russia’s imperialistic adventures in its neighbouring country and the laws ensuing this aggression. Or does this support conveniently only include those countries under attack/pressure from “the West”?
No one is trying to make this point. The point is that you defend the victim of American “unfair” laws but not the victim of Russian “unfair” laws, making your argument seem rather shallow.
You’re still whatabouting here. It is perfectly legal to call a violation of a law (however dumb it might seem to be) “illegal” without having to condemn all crimes anywhere in the world.
Pointing out that you yourself do not abide by the bold general statements you chose to make here is not whataboutism. That you permanently try to avoid any statement regarding Russia’s war and these laws doesn’t help you and your position either…
Removed by mod
Ahh, finally! So this is where we are going here.
Who invaded, then? Who massacred settlements like Bucha? Who declared that Ukraine isn’t a state but a part of Russia?
No, I am not. Because Crimea was already a part of Ukraine beforehand (1954/1992), acknowledged by Russia. But I wonder what your point is? Ukraine deserved this war?
Removed by mod
I won’t stop you exposing yourself.
That’s not an answer to my question. Who invaded?
Do you deny the extents of the crimes that happened in Butcha when attempting to “bothside” Ukraine and Russia here or do you actually think Ukraine has done equally horrible things?
From your source: In June 1992, the parties reached a compromise, that Crimea would have considerable autonomy but remain part of Ukraine.
Seeing how much difficulty you have to correctly name the country invading, I bet you do!
Let me ask: is it the German political landscape you are at home at or maybe even the Russian? Because even the putinophilic far-right nutjobs from the AfD only excuse Russia’s invasion (as does the equally putinophilic and equally populistic self-declared “left” poster girl Sarah W), but denying it is new. In which rabbit hole do I have to crawl to find these kind of positions?
I don’t think that “exposing” is the right term here. You’re behaving as if you’ve let me in on a secret. That’s not the case.
Russia did, and it had reasons for that. Whether I agree with the reasons is not the issue here, by the way, and you simply don’t know either.
I do not hold the view that there are cruel and less cruel war crimes. “But these war crimes are less horrible!” tells more about you than about Russia and/or Ukraine.
And Ukraine has cancelled this autonomy at the expense of the people of Crimea. Do you agree with me?
Lol, seriously. No, it’s not difficult for me. This “aha, WHO attacked WHOM, huh? YOU SEE!!!” just misses the point of everything that’s happening in eastern Ukraine; and you’re not proving anything to anyone.
Could you please tone down your pitiful attempts at an ad-hominem discussion? It’s getting tiring.
I think it is. Bit by bit you are revealing that you are not condemning Russia’s invasion or maybe even apologise it, yourself treating it as a secret.
Oh, but it actually is! Your initial argument has been mocking those that complain about laws they don’t like. Your point was: laws are laws, whether you like them or not. A very broad and universal statement. From a legal point of view, this invasion of Russia is most definitely illegal. So you saying now that Russia had reasons and it does not matter whether you agree with or I know these “reasons” is the final erosion of your own argument. Would you follow what you preached earlier, you would strictly oppose this invasion. Yet you do not. Go figure.
There are and I am sure that you do, too. In other conflicts, be it World War 2 or maybe Middle East, I’d be more than surprised seeing you make this claim that both sides are simply equally as bad and hence picking a side is difficult. In this conflict, it is simply convenient for you to hide from nasty, challenging truths by proclaiming a general pardon “both sides are equally bad!”. As implausible as it might be.
From a legal point, it does not. And since legality is the core of this discussion, it is most relevant.
Ad hominems aim at irrelevant properties of a person. Whether the question where you are politically at home is aiming at something irrelevant can be debated, since it very likely is closely linked to your position in the conflict we are discussing. Nevertheless, it was a question and you are not obliged to answer it if it makes you uncomfortable.
I applied a three-day timeout because all these justifications for a needless war are a little much. Feel free to discuss other topics on this community but maybe stay away from Russia-related themes.