We see they had a project in 2022 that did provide some drones, but this seems to have been in the context of supporting search and rescue operations and the like, not military operations.
Razom maintains that it does not provide military supplies of any kind. Let alone "weapons and ammunition" per the FSB charges.
Overall the charges seem to have as much credibility as the initial charge against her of "swearing in a public place".
But in any case, my question stands. Let's say a US citizen donated to a fund that supplied drones to Russia. Said drones do not carry a military payload, but can be used for recon and artillery targeting. What would you think about this person?
Whether it continued to do so by the time of her donation (in late 2023) -- being as Razom does seem to have shifted its emphasis in recent years (completely independent of any recent "sanitizing" of their website as you allege, but based on my own recollection of their messaging 2022-2023) -- is a different matter.
That's all I have time for at the moment. I may comment further again in 1-2 days.
Meanwhile let's remember that the arrest (and draconian sentencing) were in themselves a very deliberate form of propaganda. It's not like the various Russian agencies could begin to care about a $51 donation. They did what they did for certain reasons, one of which was to send some very specific messages -- on one hand to the U.S. government; but also to their own people, both inside the Motherland and abroad.
That latter message being: "We're watching you, wherever you are, and however small and unimportant you think you are - so don't you even begin to think of crossing us."
This case was probably particularly appealing to them in part precisely because the charges could be presented as borderline plausible (rather than being simply trumped up from scratch). Even if they would ultimately prove to be quite flimsy if evaluated by the standards of countries with actual working justice systems, as seems to be the case here.
It's just another part of their playbook.
How is that relevant? You're trying to equate someone's personal opinion to the Russian government putting someone in prison for 12-year due to $51?
And that's far from the most egregious example. There are plenty of people in Russian prisons for much less than that (e.g. reciting poetry or ambiguous social media posts).
Anyway regardless of anyone's personal opinion that's not how sanction enforcement or the US judicial system on the whole works. The U.S. Treasury Department has allowed transactions related to humanitarian causes (and a bunch of other cases) so what are you even talking about?