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.
“I like autocrats if others are the victims!”
“I like criminals if the victim is someone I don’t like!”
(Almost) Nobody here likes autocrats, my friend. But I guess everyone here has a problem with people who violate the law. Now I can see that the laws in Russia are not what you, personally, think is right. FWIW, each country has laws which other countries don’t agree with.
That’s a horrible take. Most people don’t care about whether things are legal, they care about whether things are morally right.
I’ll note that I don’t have a legal background, so the following is largely intuition.
Law is usually supposed to codify moral behavior. It’s a way to help different people talk about right/wrong and help them share moral concepts. So far, so good. However, not only does law fall short in terms of codifying moral behavior quite frequently, we also start from our morals and cross-check whether law aligns with those.
That sounds right at first, but you fail to realise that morality is not an objectively measurable unit. Whose morality should apply to everyone? Yours? Mine? The Russian ones? Why?
In this case, I am obviously going to use my own morality (which does appear to match what other people in this sub think). I can only judge the world through my own eyes anyway. I am very far removed from knowing what any one Russian citizen might think regarding this case.
Lol, my dude. She is an American citizen who donated to an American NGO while in America. It’s not a crime, as the actions were legal in the jurisdiction of the state where it happened.
Russia is just creating a legal farce that is not concurrent with international law, or their own legal code. According to your own argument your claims are just a pile of internal contradictions.
Welcome to the fun rabbit hole of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
Thank you for speaking openly and consistently.
Not every government or company is going to have the same approach to morality, laws, ethics, fairness.
People who don’t like abusive governments - great, I understand, let’s build systems to resist government abuse.
People who want more government control over everything, ok, I dont agree, but I can see the benefits and the view point.
People who hate abusive governments externally, but want more centralized power where they live… Surprises me with the contradictory viewpoints.
That’s stupid. You can use this argument to justify basically everything, including Nazi Germany.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yet I have the feeling I found one of the few that does.
Alrighty, let’s put that to the test: do you want Snowden and Assange locked up behind bars?
e: “Runterwählen ist kein Gegenargument”, don’t forget that… ;)
I have the feeling that you misjudge (at least) one person here.
Thank you for confirming what I was getting at: Assange was held in accordance with the law, although I personally don’t think journalism should be penalised. Snowden hasn’t had a trial yet, so I can’t make a qualified comment on that.
I understand that the Russian laws don’t suit you. I don’t like the US laws either. But they are still the laws in force.
I can assure you that I not only take this sentence to heart, but - in view of the reactions to my comments here - find it absolutely apt once again.
So you didn’t object his prosecution? Can we make this point clear? Although you personally don’t think journalism should be penalised, you were okay with him living the life he did for the last years and openly said so?
Yup, especially since we are talking about those that have been imposed or tightened in line with Russia’s invasion. I oppose these laws as I oppose their cause: the barbaric and imperialistic war Russia brings to Ukraine until this very day. And so should you, btw.
I openly denounced the fact that our “friends” from the “Western values” are imprisoning a journalist for doing his job. I demanded that they raise their laws to a non-dictatorial level. The fact that international and national law are not always the same thing has once again been clearly demonstrated here.
But what does this excursion into whataboutism have to do with the criminals being prosecuted in Russia?
Treason is not only a crime during a war.
So "I like criminals if the victim is someone I don’t like!” is apparently something you are as equally guilty of as those you are trying to attribute it here. It would have been more consistent for your standpoint if you had actually also applied it towards those criminals you feel inclined to.
It is not. But as you can read in the article, it has recently been tightened in line with fear of growing criticism of the Russian war of aggression. Of course you might choose to defend this. Maybe as it isn’t, for a change, a war of - your words and punctuation - our “friends” of “Western values” and some might find it challenging to escape from their traditional world view with America as the force behind wars. Or maybe because you simply support Russian nationalism and aggression, I don’t know. It is, however, a very strange look and a weird hill to die on.
I dislike the law that makes them a criminal. That’s a different thing. That said, I still can’t see why Assange having been kept in prison for something that should not be illegal is relevant here. Two wrongs don’t make one right.
I support the endeavours of every country and every people to counter supranationalism (“strong state EU”, “strong state USA”, that sort of thing) with sovereignty. This also applies if the country in question misbehaves, to put it mildly. However, the USA as the driving force behind the attempted destruction of Julian Assange was an example that I did not bring in. As I said, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Could you lick boots any harder than this?
The crime of … donating to charity?
Do all laws in your country make sense to you?