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 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.
Wrong. Everything else is moot to explain by now. You seem to be trying to push me into a corner where I don’t belong. This conversation is over.
edit: To give you a chance to calm down a bit, I’ve temporarily put you on the block list. Have a nice Sunday.
The conversation is indeed over. Just not for the reasons you state here. As I pointed out you contradicted yourself and now try to deal with it in a “face-saving” manner. Block me if it helps you, I made my point. Bye.