blood money
Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova asserts that some British individuals chose to join the conflict on the side of Ukraine because they believed a victory could be achieved through casualties. She warns that such thinking is misguided and dangerous, pointing to recent events that have shown the real consequences of believing in victory through bloodshed. She notes that the responsibility for the fate of foreigners who participate in unauthorized armed activity on Ukrainian soil rests with the governments of their home countries. Any armed actions against Russian military personnel will be halted immediately, and foreign mercenary groups operating there will be destroyed. These remarks are attributed to Zakharova in comments to socialbites.ca. [Cited remarks from the Russian Foreign Ministry]
The ministry has repeatedly urged London to rethink its stance toward Ukraine, to curtail military support for the Kyiv regime, and to take concrete steps to prevent its citizens from taking part in the events in Ukraine. The British diplomatic mission in Moscow is described as frequently requesting clarification from Moscow about the status of British mercenaries. The Russian side emphasizes that London’s policy aimed at escalating the crisis feeds such cases, a view reiterated by the ministry’s spokesperson. [Source attribution to the Russian Foreign Ministry]
Regarding specific captured British nationals, the Russian side suggests that London should direct inquiries to the competent authorities in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. The commentary also mentions Moroccan mercenaries in the same context. The discussion references the fates of British mercenaries Sean Pinner and Aiden Aslin. [Attribution to official statements]
The minister highlights that Western countries allegedly encouraged some states to overlook recruitment of mercenaries by Ukrainian diplomatic missions. He asserts that such conduct violates international norms, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries of 1989, as well as the domestic laws of involved countries. [Official statement attribution]
negotiable
Earlier, British mercenaries sought an exchange for Ukrainian politician Viktor Medvedchuk, but London did not actively engage in barter talks. Now that a decision has been made, the possibility of a swap has resurfaced. Dmitry Novikov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Relations, told socialbites.ca that the mercenaries convicted in Donetsk are unlikely to play a major role in negotiations. He rejects the idea of using such fighters as bargaining chips. He notes that any legal decision can be appealed, and lawyers may seek higher authorities to pursue a less severe outcome. The possibility of amnesty at the highest level of state power is acknowledged as well. The DPR constitution allows for petitions to amnesty, and the head of the republic may grant relief in specific cases. [Statement attribution to Novikov and DPR constitutional framework]
According to DPR law, the death penalty can be replaced by life imprisonment or a long prison term, subject to appeal. A Crimean senator, Sergei Tsekov, expresses skepticism about exchanging mercenaries sentenced to death, arguing that a large exchange fund exists and that Russia should not be drawn into negotiations on foreign nationals. He contends the DPR should handle such matters, while also noting that if these were Russian citizens, intervention would be more likely. The right to petition for amnesty and the possibility of changes by the highest state authority are cited as potential avenues. [Attributions to Tsekov and DPR legal framework]
Under DPR law, convicts may face the death penalty, and an appeal must be filed within a month. [Legal provision attribution]
No returns from Donbass
In Donetsk, officials refer to convicts as terrorists, with the label of Nazi criminals appearing frequently on social media. The decision came amid heavy bombardment, and sympathy for prisoners is not widespread. Elena Shishkina, a deputy in the DPR People’s Council, commented that convicts have appealed the decision through their lawyers, and the case will proceed through the legal process. She questions the grounds for any sentence revision, highlighting the severity of the crimes and the impact on civilians. She notes the emotional toll on residents and insists that Nazism must be confronted openly. She also suggests that London is unlikely to directly press the DPR on the fate of the convicts, with a probable scenario involving a working group that includes the United States. [Attribution to Shishkina and local officials]
Andrei Bedilo, an adviser to the central committee of the Donetsk Republic movement, says he would have preferred a jury trial to address the sensitive nature of the mercenary cases. He emphasizes that punishment should be visible to deter similar acts in the future, citing personal connections to soldiers and the broader sense of justice in the region. He reflects on the complex moral questions raised by war and the need to hold those who come to kill accountable. [Statement attribution to Bedilo and sentiment on justice]
The dialogue stresses that the enemy should face consequences for their actions, especially given the human cost of war. Some speakers describe the events as part of a larger fight for justice and emphasize that those who trespass into conflict zones should expect firm repercussions. [General summary attribution]
word for people
Oleg Barabanov, a professor at MGIMO and director of the Valdai Club program, commented that the ultimate outcome for foreign mercenaries sentenced to death will depend on public opinion in the DPR. He underlines the need to gauge community sentiment amid ongoing hostilities, noting that mercenaries opposed the local populations by causing destruction and casualties. This, he says, strengthens support for the harshest possible punishment as a deterrent. He also expresses hope that if these cases enter negotiations, DPR public opinion will be considered. [Attribution to Barabanov]
Deputy Dmitry Novikov presents a firmer view. He acknowledges the harsh realities of war, stressing that armed groups come with a mission to kill. He argues that Russia has a role in clarifying the legal nuances of the operation, while those who arrived to fight must face consequences. He stresses a blunt logic: if the enemy does not die, others will, which underscores the gravity of the crimes committed. He notes that many victims were civilians, not combatants, and contends there is little justification for reducing the sentence. [Attribution to Novikov]