Obviously, they're not paying the $322 million. The amount doesn't matter because they're not paying anything. What it does enable is seizing their domain names and any other resources that are hosted by companies in the US jurisdiction.
Example: most member states within the RCEP trade agreement (e.g., Australia)
India
Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey all deliberately hedge relations between blocs.
Japan and South Korea are heavily economically intertwined (not conflict-free obviously)
Singapore
South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt
Way things are going, I suspect that many of people who are wanted by the American government will find friendly arms in China and Europe.
(Perhaps even there I'm optimistic about Russia wanting to normalise relations? Or existing?)
The whole continent != nation thing is clearer with the EU != Europe (due to the EU not even being a nation yet) than with the American nation != The Americas.
Even then, don't underestimate rules-lawyering of laws: I wish to suggest that the USA is going down the path of "rogue state", and that extradition treaties may have clauses (either explicitly in treaty text* or implicitly via the European Convention on Human Rights) protecting individuals from the risk of a death penalty, which may end up getting invoked due to the US having the death penalty.
* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/agreement... and https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/109th-congress/14/d...
Article 13 (``Capital punishment'') provides that when an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the requesting State but not under the laws in the requested State, the requested State may grant extradition on condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed or, if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the requesting State, on condition that if imposed the death penalty shall not be carried out.
This is pretty obviously not true? Russia's not going to try to please the us or most European countries, and many fugitives in Russia only angered those countries.
It's honestly astonishing the US is cucked enough to betray their own citizens up for trial by foreign court. Plenty of places won't do that.
There is unlikely to be any thaw within our lifetimes.
That's also better than Russia focusing delivering their resources to China for good.
Before the war, upper-class Russians had it good. Freedom of movement to the West. Russian money was popular in Europe, now it's got a Chernobyl toxic glow to it. It wouldn't be so bad to go back to 2010 Russia before Putin threw all of that away on territorial expansion and irridentism.
Putting a bullet in your skull for accessing a blocked internet resource vs just blocking the resource or paying a fine.
Honestly I can name many things that can be different.
We've got army block, FSB block, technocrats, bureaucrats and oligarchs. The usual (more or less) story.
The real problem is - we don't have system that scales horizontally. So when Putin goes people will have to deal with the vertical system he created for himself.
The problem here is this "for himself" part.
For this system to work you will have to be a new Putin (at least for some time) and for this you will have to enforce your decisions and shape your new system. Top to bottom.
Best thing that can happen to Russian (realistically) is that the power will be given to technocrats.
They are not neccesarily more liberal, but they have real education, they do understand a thing or to about economics, open borders, sharing of knowledge etc.
They won't be able to quickly change Russia, but given some time they can reshape it step by step.
Alas - we have FSB and Army blocks, high level of corruption and millions of people who see people like Putin as the best choice. They don't need progress and responsibility. They need their empire back even if they are just peasants with serfdom included.
It would look bad if they did nothing, so a few 100k on legal theatre is worth it for them. Now they can say it's the US courts that are powerless.
The only reason you have to tell the truth is if you want to reduce the risk of arbitrarily losing control of the domain, such as having a chance to contest any abuse reports that might be filed against you.
Same question though how are they paying for the domain, assuming this is on the plaintiff to trace
I assume that they may have been seized as a consequence of this trial.