OPINION: The Price of Freedom: Ethics and Implications of August 1 Prisoner Exchange

The prisoner exchange between Russia and the West, which saw the release of 16 people held by Moscow, was at first sight a welcome event for their families and those campaigning for adherence to human rights and freedoms. Yet, it also perpetuated a dangerous precedent that weaponized hostage diplomacy on the part of a dangerous adversary, and raised questions about the value placed by the West on the lives of Ukrainians, including Ukrainian children, with up to 20,000 illegally held in Russia.

It is without a doubt that the 16 individuals traded by Russia deserved their freedom. The decision to undertake painstaking, secret talks, a crucial phone call from President Biden, high-level discussions with European allies, and substantial diplomatic pressure to secure the release of prisoners is a worthwhile use of taxpayer-funded time by public servants of Western states.

There is, however, a greater question of whether pandering to Russian demands, including releasing those who have unquestionably committed crimes in the West, was a worthwhile compromise and if an alternative path was possible.

The prisoners released by the West to Russia consist of individuals involved in various serious crimes, many of which posed significant security risks.

Vadim Krasikov, an FSB officer, was serving a life sentence for the 2019 assassination of a former commander of Chechnya’s independent Ichkerian forces in Berlin. His politically motivated murder, executed on foreign soil, and subsequent release set a dangerous precedent that further cements Russia’s perception of impunity for covert operations abroad, at a time when such Russian operations in NATO states should be out of bounds for the Kremlin.

Other Topics of Interest

Ukraine Critic and Trump Loyalist Matt Gaetz Withdraws Nomination as US Attorney General

The controversial congressman pulled his name from the running after dozens of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle spoke out against the choice to lead the Justice Department.

This perception will undoubtedly be widely publicized in Russian media, especially after Putin’s claims that Krasikov is a patriot, and it will be an indicator to other nefarious actors looking to conduct similar operations in the West.

Mikhail Mikushin is a Russian spy, previously held in Norway. Anna Dultseva and Artyom Dultsev were also Russian spies, who were sentenced for espionage in Slovenia. Vadim Konoshchenok, a suspected Russian intelligence agent, faced up to 30 years for sanctions violations, now a key aspect of Moscow’s international strategy. Another spy, Pablo Gonzalez / Pavel Rubtsov, who was held in Poland, had used journalism as a cover, and in doing so abused the core democratic freedoms extended to members of the press.

Roman Seleznyov is a hacker sentenced to 27 years for credit card fraud. Similarly, Vladislav Klyushin was sentenced to nine years for insider trading. Although his primary crime was financial, his close affiliation with GRU’s Ivan Yermakov, a man identified as playing a role in influencing US elections, raises questions about Klyushin’s involvement in this also.

This collection of murderers, spies, fraudsters, and smugglers is expected to reach the same levels of fame, wealth, and social status already experienced by those Russians involved in high-profile cases such as the murders of Alexander Litvinenko, Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, and the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal.

Litvinenko was poisoned in London in 2006, while the main suspect, Andrei Lugovoi, has not only avoided punishment but has since gained fame and influence within Russia, even serving as a member of the Russian parliament.

Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, was assassinated in Qatar in 2004. The two Russian agents convicted for his murder were subsequently extradited to Russia on the condition they would serve their sentences there. However, upon their return, they were welcomed as heroes and released.

Sergei Skripal was targeted in a nerve agent attack in Salisbury in 2018. The two suspects, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, both Russian GRU agents, safely returned to Russia, where they have faced no legal repercussions and have been portrayed in Russian media as innocent tourists.

Several Russian female “honeytrap” agents caught in the West have been allowed to return to Russia safely in the past.

Anna Chapman is one of the most famous female Russian agents captured in the US. She was part of a spy ring known as the “Illegals Program” uncovered by the FBI in 2010. Chapman and nine other Russian agents were arrested and charged with working as unregistered foreign agents. They lived seemingly ordinary lives while gathering intelligence and attempting to build influential contacts. After her arrest and subsequent deportation, Chapman became a Russian celebrity.

Elena Vavilova, operating under the alias Tracey Foley, was part of the same “Illegals Program” as Anna Chapman. Vavilova and her husband, Andrey Bezrukov (aka Donald Heathfield), lived in the US for years, posing as a Canadian couple while conducting espionage activities. After their capture and deportation to Russia, they were also celebrated and reintegrated into Russian society.

Maria Butina was arrested in the US in 2018 and charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent. She infiltrated political groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), and built relationships with influential conservative figures to advance Russian interests. Butina pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison before being deported to Russia. Upon her return, she received a warm welcome, quickly became a prominent media personality, and was used in propaganda news segments, including during her visit to Navalny’s prison colony.

These are just a few of the more well-known cases where the individuals were caught red-handed, and their stories widely publicized. A much wider network of unnamed agents, such as those who set the failed likely honeytrap set for Bill Browder, described in his book Red Notice, witnessing the return of these and other Russian spies, will experience a reinvigorating surge, now confident in Putin’s ability to imprison more people of interest to the West in preparation for potential future exchanges.

The current exchange, in which President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan appears to have been heavily involved, sets a dangerous precedent that likely fuels future hostage diplomacy. By acquiescing to Russian demands and releasing individuals guilty of serious crimes, the West inadvertently encourages further kidnappings and unjust detentions, effectively validating Putin’s nefarious tactic.

The potential for oppressive regimes to imprison innumerable people indefinitely has already been highlighted as a flaw in prisoner exchange negotiations, as seen in the case of Belarus. While the West, constrained by legal frameworks, cannot and must not lower itself to the same level, even towards countless openly and secretive pro-Russian oligarchs residing in European capitals, ultimately, exchanges are a battle that cannot be won by the West.

The opaque nature of the negotiations in this case also obscures the full extent of concessions made, leaving the public, who are already heavily investing in Ukraine's victory through taxes and donations, in the dark about what has been sacrificed beyond the prisoners themselves. This lack of transparency not only undermines trust in Western governments but also questions the commitment to a principled stand against Russian aggression and coercion.

Additionally, there is an additional consideration which must be on the minds of American and European leaders – that of the opportunity cost of releasing the thousands languishing in Russia, abducted and captured after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. With 20,000 children held in Russia and Belarus and close to 900 of the Azov defenders of Mariupol being held and murdered in Russia, what would the West consider trading for their release beyond Ukrainian sovereignty?

So, with significant public investment in Ukraine's struggle, we remain in the dark about what was conceded beyond the prisoner release, and what it could portend.