Russia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Andrey Kelin, rejected the claims that Moscow bears responsibility for the death of a mercenary in Donbass. He described the accusations as unfounded and even ridiculous during an appearance on the television channel Russia 24.
Kelin argued that holding Russia accountable for the mercenary’s death is not only incorrect but simply ludicrous. He explained that the mercenary is subject to the jurisdiction of another authority, specifically the Donetsk People’s Republic, and that the court operating there has jurisdiction over such cases. In his view, the state of Russia cannot be deemed responsible for actions that fall within another entity’s legal framework.
The ambassador also criticized what he characterized as a lack of interest from British authorities in the plight of mercenaries detained in Donbass. He suggested that London had not shown concern for their situation, noting that these individuals had already undergone court proceedings and appeals, with no observable action forthcoming from the British side.
These remarks followed a prior statement at the U.S. State Department in which Kelin conveyed his deep concern about the death of the British national Paul Ury in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The diplomat reiterated that the death had occurred on July 10 and cited medical details such as acute coronary insufficiency complicated by pulmonary and cerebral edema as the contributing factors.
From the Russian perspective, the chain of responsibility for mercenary activity in the region is complex and characterized by multiple legal jurisdictions. Kelin stressed that assertions of Moscow’s accountability do not align with the existing legal and political structure governing Donbass-related matters. He implied that third-country authorities, including those in the United Kingdom, should consider whether their own nationals’ involvement with such groups falls under their direct oversight rather than attributing blame to Russia.
The exchange reflects broader tensions surrounding the use and detention of mercenaries in conflict zones, as well as the international community’s interest in the fate of individuals engaged in private military operations. Observers note that the Donetsk People’s Republic has established its own legal processes for individuals within its control, which can differ significantly from international expectations or standards.
While the exact circumstances of the mercenary deaths and detentions remain disputed, the incident has reignited debates over accountability, sovereignty, and the appropriate channels for addressing the consequences of private military involvement in the region. Analysts say that the discourse often centers on who bears legal liability in a landscape where non-state actors operate alongside recognized authorities, complicating attempts to assign clear responsibility.
In this backdrop, the dialogue between Moscow and Western capitals continues to be influenced by questions of jurisdiction, legal authority, and the treatment of foreign nationals caught up in the Donbass conflict. The official Russian stance emphasizes legal boundaries and jurisdictional realities, while Western observers push for transparency and accountability regarding mercenary activity and its human consequences.