[themitigating]

The parent's use of "only after" doesn't sit right

It implies a forced (no choice) reaction to an unjust or unexpected cause. A more neutral tone would have just said "after"

"I ran from the police after they pulled me over for speeding"

"I ran from the police only after they pulled me over for speeding"

[s1artibartfast]

I think your example negates your point.

I don't read that as the speaker being forced to run, or that being pulled over was unjust.

It describes the order of operations. The fact that someone ran only after being pulled over could be very relevant.

[themitigating]

That's fair. Maybe it's because I only qualify "after" with "only" if I'm making some point.

[s1artibartfast]

I agree that there is a second part, conditionally. It Implies that you would not have run if you had not been pulled over- which is true!

The same holds true for Russia. They would not have demanded payment in rubles if they had access to Swift.

The problem is that people confuse conditionality and moral justification.

I would not have run if they never pulled me over is no more of an excuse then I would never have shot him if he didn't look at me weird.

Something can be conditional and true but still a bad reason.