Baltic airlines reroute flights to avoid Belarus airspace(lrt.lt)
lrt.lt
Baltic airlines reroute flights to avoid Belarus airspace
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1416084/baltic-airlines-reroute-flights-to-avoid-belarus-airspace
331 comments
This has also been set in motion:
https://i.redd.it/elts5rgbg0171.jpg
Worth noting that the EU has banned entire nations (such as Kazakhstan and others) from flying in EU airspace before for not meeting safety expectations. It is absolutely within possibility to ban Belarus for an overt Chicago convention violation.
>It is absolutely within possibility to ban Belarus for an overt Chicago convention violation.
EU did the same thing in 2013 by forcing the Bolivian president's plane to land in an effort to catch Snowden. They have no moral or legal standing here whatsoever.
https://euobserver.com/justice/120734
EU did the same thing in 2013 by forcing the Bolivian president's plane to land in an effort to catch Snowden. They have no moral or legal standing here whatsoever.
https://euobserver.com/justice/120734
Maybe no moral standing, but they still have legal standing.
This wasn’t even remotely similar.
Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel.
Belarus called in a fake bomb threat and used their fighter jets to force a passenger flight to land in their territory, not to mention the KGB officers on board making a scene.
Outcome might be similar, but it’s specifically the tactics used which make this unacceptable.
Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel.
Belarus called in a fake bomb threat and used their fighter jets to force a passenger flight to land in their territory, not to mention the KGB officers on board making a scene.
Outcome might be similar, but it’s specifically the tactics used which make this unacceptable.
>Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel.
Seems like a trivial difference. Denying access to your airspace comes with the implicit threat of fighter interception.
Seems like a trivial difference. Denying access to your airspace comes with the implicit threat of fighter interception.
In the event that you are not a Russian troll, let me explain two key differences:
The Morales jet was warned ahead of time in a legal way, not intercepted and forced to land in an unintended destination.
No persons from the Morales jet were detained.
One is an lawful act (perhaps imoral in some way) , and one is an arbitrary act outside of any lawful framework . I hope this clears the confusion.
The Morales jet was warned ahead of time in a legal way, not intercepted and forced to land in an unintended destination.
No persons from the Morales jet were detained.
One is an lawful act (perhaps imoral in some way) , and one is an arbitrary act outside of any lawful framework . I hope this clears the confusion.
Morales plane was searched. If Snowden was on it, he would have been detained.
It's not that Belarus' actions are admissable. It's that the West is acting in a hypocritical way.
If Belarus had as much power as the US, they surely would have followed the same route and forced all the surrounding nations to close their airspace. The end result would be the same.
It's not that Belarus' actions are admissable. It's that the West is acting in a hypocritical way.
If Belarus had as much power as the US, they surely would have followed the same route and forced all the surrounding nations to close their airspace. The end result would be the same.
It was searched according to the local law where it landed. Nobody forced them to land in Austria - could have just as easily returned to Moscow.
The stark difference between the way the West does it is that you have a choice whenever to comply or pick an alternative, whereas Belarus left no choice.
EU, as a matter of routine, forbids certain persons from entering their airspace, has refused entry countless times to planes (some of them airborne) based on passenger manifests. Nobody would have batted an eye if Belarus would have done the same.
Pointing a gun (armed MiG fighter) at a civilian airplane based on who is a passenger using a deceptive pretext, outside laws and regulations, is several orders of magnitudes worse than lawful application of rules. If you fail to see why, read about habeas corpus.
The stark difference between the way the West does it is that you have a choice whenever to comply or pick an alternative, whereas Belarus left no choice.
EU, as a matter of routine, forbids certain persons from entering their airspace, has refused entry countless times to planes (some of them airborne) based on passenger manifests. Nobody would have batted an eye if Belarus would have done the same.
Pointing a gun (armed MiG fighter) at a civilian airplane based on who is a passenger using a deceptive pretext, outside laws and regulations, is several orders of magnitudes worse than lawful application of rules. If you fail to see why, read about habeas corpus.
The same end result achieved by legal or illegal means is more than enough difference. One is performed by the consent of many, the other by thuggery of few.
It a huge difference... You're suggesting there is a conspiracy a foot. When in practice it's quite likely France, Spain, etc. just denied access because then the diplomatic hot potato wouldn't be theirs :)
And I'm hindsight Austria probably regrets they didn't deny access too, because then the potato wouldn't have landed on their soil.
It's not very bold to say: "pass don't involve me", but it's not necessarily a conspiracy to intercept a plane. That would have to involve a lot of people, and would probably leak..
And I'm hindsight Austria probably regrets they didn't deny access too, because then the potato wouldn't have landed on their soil.
It's not very bold to say: "pass don't involve me", but it's not necessarily a conspiracy to intercept a plane. That would have to involve a lot of people, and would probably leak..
They had a bunch of plain clothes operatives follow a guy onto a public flight, fake a bomb threat and scramble jets to get the plane to land?
All this whataboutism isn't really bringing much to the discussion here...
What next, the West can't complain about human rights violations in HK or Mongolia just because US police shot some dude (again)?
All this whataboutism isn't really bringing much to the discussion here...
What next, the West can't complain about human rights violations in HK or Mongolia just because US police shot some dude (again)?
“whataboutism” is a thought-terminating cliche — it’s a directly analogous situation that shows that there are no principles or rule-based order, only power. you have the power to get away with doing this, or you don’t; lofty rhetoric is a propaganda measure
“Whataboutism” gets my goat because:
* It generally has no context. Yes, the West did something similar. It does not follow that the West will engage in the same type of systemic evil, that argument must be made on its own.
* Whataboutism often implies that naughty behavior is ok; that the hypocrisy of the West is justification for some further evil. One is at best making the argument that everyone is evil so just do it
* It consistently assumes the ignorance of particularly Americans - that if you just tell the dumb American that his government did something bad too, the scales will fall from their eyes, they will accept everything is evil and meaningless, and they will stop criticizing you
* the West is just plain better, on the historical record, at admitting and correcting hypocrisy. It’s a kind of meta-hypocrisy for these countries that never actually implement a liberal system to do such a great job of helping us improve ours, by pointing out flaws we’re secure enough to fix and they’re not.
Moreover, whataboutism does not prove that only power exists. Much the opposite: it proves that, at least in the West, moral norms can have force. Else why would Easterners bother with it?
* It generally has no context. Yes, the West did something similar. It does not follow that the West will engage in the same type of systemic evil, that argument must be made on its own.
* Whataboutism often implies that naughty behavior is ok; that the hypocrisy of the West is justification for some further evil. One is at best making the argument that everyone is evil so just do it
* It consistently assumes the ignorance of particularly Americans - that if you just tell the dumb American that his government did something bad too, the scales will fall from their eyes, they will accept everything is evil and meaningless, and they will stop criticizing you
* the West is just plain better, on the historical record, at admitting and correcting hypocrisy. It’s a kind of meta-hypocrisy for these countries that never actually implement a liberal system to do such a great job of helping us improve ours, by pointing out flaws we’re secure enough to fix and they’re not.
Moreover, whataboutism does not prove that only power exists. Much the opposite: it proves that, at least in the West, moral norms can have force. Else why would Easterners bother with it?
No, it was not the same thing. That plane had all means to travel in another direction, including return to departure point (it had more than enough fuel for it). Also, whataboutism.
No. You don't underestand. Snowden = american criminal. America = our friend. This guy = belorussian criminal. Lukashenkon - until some months ago our friend, now - our enemy.
Only the airlines, not the nation.
You can fly from Kazakhstan on an European carrier to Europe. Europe previously have also banned shoddy Soviet era airliners that are both incredibly loud, toxic and quite unsafe, which is the right thing to do.
You can fly from Kazakhstan on an European carrier to Europe. Europe previously have also banned shoddy Soviet era airliners that are both incredibly loud, toxic and quite unsafe, which is the right thing to do.
I feel this is a fairly pedantic correction, though of course you're very correct nonetheless. My opinion is that banning all of a nations major airlines from operating in your airspace is functionally equivalent to banning that nation. Belarus is much like Kazakhstan in that the vast majority of routes from its airports are by its national airlines. Most of the routes to the EU are flown by Belavia (Belarus' national airline) https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq.
[deleted]
European diplomats being "strongly concerned" have long become a running joke here in Russia: https://twitter.com/ISEUConcerned
I sincerely hope that this statement finally gets backed up by some decisive action that can put real pressure on these dictators, but I don't get my hopes up.
I sincerely hope that this statement finally gets backed up by some decisive action that can put real pressure on these dictators, but I don't get my hopes up.
I know that people can joke about the west in Russia but are people allowed to make jokes about their own government in Russia and in the associated eastern european states?
Is it like China yet? I'm guessing not as there's no visible list of banned words and phrases, but we don't see (in HN) much criticism of Russia, Belarus from there, just attacks on the hypocrisy of the West.
Do you see it headed towards China, where no internal criticism is allowed?
Is it like China yet? I'm guessing not as there's no visible list of banned words and phrases, but we don't see (in HN) much criticism of Russia, Belarus from there, just attacks on the hypocrisy of the West.
Do you see it headed towards China, where no internal criticism is allowed?
Criticism is allowed unless you have ambitions to work in government. Critique of the government has become actually quite common in the Russian stand up comedy scene. There are some exceptions, like you cannot show any public disrespect to the Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov (you can google how people apologise to him).
Edit (forgot to mention): also, participating in anti-government protests often results in people losing their jobs or being expelled from the universities
Edit 2: also, there is an ongoing crisis with the independent media: the Russian government is trying to suffocate the independent news outlets by classifying them as foreign agents (which has pretty bad practical outcomes for the news outlet)
Edit (forgot to mention): also, participating in anti-government protests often results in people losing their jobs or being expelled from the universities
Edit 2: also, there is an ongoing crisis with the independent media: the Russian government is trying to suffocate the independent news outlets by classifying them as foreign agents (which has pretty bad practical outcomes for the news outlet)
baybal2(1)
> participating in anti-government protests often results in people losing their jobs or being expelled from the universities
This is quickly becoming the situation in the US if you criticize popular political movements.
This is quickly becoming the situation in the US if you criticize popular political movements.
For example, there have been many documented cases in the past few years of people getting fired over supporting the BDS movement - or in a few cases, not actively supporting anti-BDS movements.
... oh, that's not what you meant?
... oh, that's not what you meant?
Not exactly... In the US, organizations use this form of self-censorship to prevent a potential backlash from the public, whereas in Russia, the bans are direct orders from the government and the employers simply don't have any choice.
Often, there is less practical difference than I’d hope for. Look at the credit card networks’ sanctions of things like allofmp3.com, for example.
If you enjoy audio fiction, or short stories you might enjoy “The Revolution, brought to you by Nike”. It was written by an ad industry insider, and touches on a lot of issues regarding corporate self-censorship. (It’s a few years old, and predates Nike’s recent political activism):
https://escapepod.org/2018/09/06/escape-pod-644-the-revoluti...
If you enjoy audio fiction, or short stories you might enjoy “The Revolution, brought to you by Nike”. It was written by an ad industry insider, and touches on a lot of issues regarding corporate self-censorship. (It’s a few years old, and predates Nike’s recent political activism):
https://escapepod.org/2018/09/06/escape-pod-644-the-revoluti...
How will you know if the answer to this is honest or censored, though?
For the Chinese you can tell when they cannot even refer to, say or admit certain things: e.g. massacres. But they would say "we are not being censored"
For China and Russia, etc, it feels as if by mocking the hypocrisy of the West they are naively assuming that there's no such criticism from within the West.
I think this is revealing but I might be wrong.
For China and Russia, etc, it feels as if by mocking the hypocrisy of the West they are naively assuming that there's no such criticism from within the West.
I think this is revealing but I might be wrong.
> For the Chinese you can tell when they cannot even refer to, say or admit certain things: e.g. massacres. But they would say "we are not being censored"
It is exactly the same in Russia, you may not mention certain historical facts at all, e.g. Germany-USSR cooperation during 1939-1941
It is exactly the same in Russia, you may not mention certain historical facts at all, e.g. Germany-USSR cooperation during 1939-1941
Well, this is fine example of so-called "lie", plain and simple. You may mention it, and often it is being mentioned by all kinds of media. Things that really are frowned upon are highly controversial topics like alleged mass raping by the Red Army in Germany during WW2 . Other than that, no holds are barred, and things are discussed freely; I'd say hot topics are more frequent in Russian media than in the US one ; but clearly hotness and level of controversy is different in two blocs
if you're still in Russia, try posting some photos of 1939 Brest-Litovsk parade on your VK page, we'll watch from afar how it goes for you
no, like post it to your VK and write "USSR cooperated with Nazis to divide and occupy Poland"
Alleged?
That's why there is a Russian language Wikipedia article about said cooperation: https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_ненападении_между_... and that article cites a number of print books.
To be fair, that's likely neither hosted in Russia nor exclusively edited by Russian residents.
The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre, for example. I would assume it's not available in China. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4...
The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre, for example. I would assume it's not available in China. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4...
As a native Russian I do remember learning about the said cooperation in school in the 2000s
You can google my username, and get my social network accounts for the last 20 years, and a lot of details me and even my family, wikipedia article about my grandfather and his history in USSR, and so on. And then ask yourself if state propaganda would go to such trouble for a couple of comments. It's not doxing, I wouldn't use it if I wasn't completely okay with that.
It is a crime to make caricatures of Vladimir Putin.
Someone is downvoting this comment to death, so I'm sharing the story for the brave and curious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05...
Someone is downvoting this comment to death, so I'm sharing the story for the brave and curious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05...
It's also apparently not advisable to beat him in ice hockey.
https://deadspin.com/vladimir-putin-scores-eight-goals-in-ru...
https://deadspin.com/vladimir-putin-scores-eight-goals-in-ru...
Pikabu is one of the most popular Russian websites (something like Reddit). Here's search results of Putin caricatures: https://pikabu.ru/tag/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D...
It might be a crime, but it's not enforced enough, obviously.
It might be a crime, but it's not enforced enough, obviously.
The real reason for that law is probably to use it as a tool against dissidents.
I am very worried that the situation is headed towards China, or much worse.
And the main reason I am worried is that I can see no path towards a peaceful de-escalation. It is a foregone conclusion in the West that "Russia = bad" and any attempt to say anything counter to that narrative gets you labeled a pro-Kremlin troll. Let's see how deep in the grey this comments ends up for example.
Think Germany after WW1. Humiliated, defeated country. The people of such countries tend to follow leaders who promise to make them great again. When they do, they get further mockery and isolation. And I think it's been conclusively proven that this only breeds more radicalism.
But most will read this as "if you are not with us then you are against us" and turn up the intensity.
And the main reason I am worried is that I can see no path towards a peaceful de-escalation. It is a foregone conclusion in the West that "Russia = bad" and any attempt to say anything counter to that narrative gets you labeled a pro-Kremlin troll. Let's see how deep in the grey this comments ends up for example.
Think Germany after WW1. Humiliated, defeated country. The people of such countries tend to follow leaders who promise to make them great again. When they do, they get further mockery and isolation. And I think it's been conclusively proven that this only breeds more radicalism.
But most will read this as "if you are not with us then you are against us" and turn up the intensity.
While criticism is legal, it does significantly increase your chances of falling out a window, if you're in a prominent position. Very careless, these Kremlin critics.
Interestingly, critics of repressive regimes exhibit _themed_ carelessness; those who were a bit too open in Apartheid South Africa fell down _stairs_, instead.
Interestingly, critics of repressive regimes exhibit _themed_ carelessness; those who were a bit too open in Apartheid South Africa fell down _stairs_, instead.
> I know that people can joke about the west in Russia but are people allowed to make jokes about their own government in Russia and in the associated eastern european states?
That's a tough question. For example, when I was active in TikTok (I grew tired of it pretty fast), I've made a lot of very critical videos that had a lot of views. In one of them, that got almost 100k views, I explicitly said that Putin and his gang are usurping power, and while the current Russian laws say that it's punishable up to 20 years in prison, I think that they deserve the death penalty. I did not get in any trouble for that. But many others from Russian Libertarian Party (which I'm a member of) have, even though they've said much less. May be they had a wider reach, or may be it's just random, I don't know. And I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of years later I'll get 5 years of prison for these TikToks.
That's a tough question. For example, when I was active in TikTok (I grew tired of it pretty fast), I've made a lot of very critical videos that had a lot of views. In one of them, that got almost 100k views, I explicitly said that Putin and his gang are usurping power, and while the current Russian laws say that it's punishable up to 20 years in prison, I think that they deserve the death penalty. I did not get in any trouble for that. But many others from Russian Libertarian Party (which I'm a member of) have, even though they've said much less. May be they had a wider reach, or may be it's just random, I don't know. And I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of years later I'll get 5 years of prison for these TikToks.
thanks for your perspective! Is the chilling factor an issue there yet? It feels from your comments that it's not, that its a bit too random yet, or a bit too early?
[deleted]
> I know that people can joke about the west in Russia but are people allowed to make jokes about their own government in Russia and in the associated eastern european states? Is it like China yet?
Yes, plenty of people inside those countries do not like regime and openly discuss it on public internet websites. I don't know about China situation so I can't make a direct comparison. If you're very popular blogger and you'll make direct insults to Putin (or any other person with high position), you might be fined or even jailed, there are laws prohibiting insults against people, but those cases are very rare. And nobody hunts ordinary people.
> I'm guessing not as there's no visible list of banned words and phrases, but we don't see (in HN) much criticism of Russia, Belarus from there, just attacks on the hypocrisy of the West.
Huh? HN is pretty much against Russia, Belarus, etc. Those who try to defend usually are heavily downvoted and labeled as kremlin bots.
Anyway people usually are gathered with similar viewpoints. Any outsiders are expelled quickly. I know web forums, where most of people are holding pro-Russian viewpoint and I know web forums, where most of people are holding pro-West viewpoint. But I know no webforum with balanced opinion. I think that for US people Republicans vs Democrats might be a close analogy.
Yes, plenty of people inside those countries do not like regime and openly discuss it on public internet websites. I don't know about China situation so I can't make a direct comparison. If you're very popular blogger and you'll make direct insults to Putin (or any other person with high position), you might be fined or even jailed, there are laws prohibiting insults against people, but those cases are very rare. And nobody hunts ordinary people.
> I'm guessing not as there's no visible list of banned words and phrases, but we don't see (in HN) much criticism of Russia, Belarus from there, just attacks on the hypocrisy of the West.
Huh? HN is pretty much against Russia, Belarus, etc. Those who try to defend usually are heavily downvoted and labeled as kremlin bots.
Anyway people usually are gathered with similar viewpoints. Any outsiders are expelled quickly. I know web forums, where most of people are holding pro-Russian viewpoint and I know web forums, where most of people are holding pro-West viewpoint. But I know no webforum with balanced opinion. I think that for US people Republicans vs Democrats might be a close analogy.
> If you're very popular blogger and you'll make direct insults to Putin (or any other person with high position), you might be fined or even jailed
> nobody hunts ordinary people
Unless they have something bad to say about the regime. These don’t add up, are bloggers not ordinary people? How can you be ok with this?
> nobody hunts ordinary people
Unless they have something bad to say about the regime. These don’t add up, are bloggers not ordinary people? How can you be ok with this?
> Unless they have something bad to say about the regime.
That's not true.
> are bloggers not ordinary people?
No, they're influencers.
> How can you be ok with this?
Why wouldn't I be ok with this? Nobody should be allowed to insult anyone.
That's not true.
> are bloggers not ordinary people?
No, they're influencers.
> How can you be ok with this?
Why wouldn't I be ok with this? Nobody should be allowed to insult anyone.
> are people allowed to make jokes about their own government in Russia and in the associated eastern european states?
What "associated astern european states" do you mean?
What "associated astern european states" do you mean?
Belarus probably serves as a decent example.
Belarus aside, which ones? Because I can't think of any.
Seriously, it's been over thirty years since the end of Cold War and people still think there are some eastern European states associated with Russia... Almost all of them are in the EU now with the notable exception of Ukraine which is in a state of de facto war with Russia. Even Lukashenko has a bitter-sweet relationship with Putin.
Seriously, it's been over thirty years since the end of Cold War and people still think there are some eastern European states associated with Russia... Almost all of them are in the EU now with the notable exception of Ukraine which is in a state of de facto war with Russia. Even Lukashenko has a bitter-sweet relationship with Putin.
There's still Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaidjan. Technically, the Caucasus region is still in Europe.
I've seen some consider Kazakhstan to be a part of Europe. I suspect the region stretches, depending on the speaker, far enough east to encompass the speaker's country, regardless of its location (but no further).
Kazahstan is in Central Asia probably because it's so big. Even their timezones are prefixed with Asia. The Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains are the eastern limits of Europe, so everything on the Caspian's west bank is in Europe. Astrakhan is in Europe for instance.
Of these, Georgians are as anti-Kremlin as one could be, they were at open war against Russia in 2008. Armenia is a pro-European democracy. Azerbaijan, probably the least democratic of these, doesn't long for Kremlin either. In general, all eastern-European countries were happy to become independent from Russia and there is no reason for them to choose Russia over the EU.
So one would never refer to them as "Russia and associated eastern european states" because, frankly speaking, Kremlin has no friends in Eastern Europe. (I specifically differentiate between Kremlin with its cold-blooded war crimes, and Russian people, who are normal nice folks and are a significant part of the total population of Eastern Europe.)
So one would never refer to them as "Russia and associated eastern european states" because, frankly speaking, Kremlin has no friends in Eastern Europe. (I specifically differentiate between Kremlin with its cold-blooded war crimes, and Russian people, who are normal nice folks and are a significant part of the total population of Eastern Europe.)
There is this reaction in internet communities to demand a kind of reaction from a democratic organisation that would only be possible in an autocracy.
As a EU citizen, this is quite hilarious. The EU is so toothless it hurts.
Good, so you're in favour of an EU army? Armed invasion of Bielorussia to kidnap the guy back?
The geopolitical armchair experts complain more about responses than actually giving realistic suggestions to give.
(Sure, we can cut Belarus out, and see thousands of "Russian tourists" go for a holiday there right after - maybe that would be a good response?). And yes, you won't see me defending Borrell.
The geopolitical armchair experts complain more about responses than actually giving realistic suggestions to give.
(Sure, we can cut Belarus out, and see thousands of "Russian tourists" go for a holiday there right after - maybe that would be a good response?). And yes, you won't see me defending Borrell.
Friendly note: people from the country of Belarus call themselves "Belarusians" (pronounced like "bela-roo-sians", not like "bela-russians"), and take offence at the term "Bielorussia".
This might be a simple mistranslation; in many Romance languages, Belarus is called 'Bielorussia'.
Noted and fixed, as the other commenter noted it was the wrong language (and yes the romance languages call it something like Bielorussia, not much that can be done about that, sorry)
That's interesting! From my (admittedly very weak) understanding of Cyrillic, I'd expect Беларусь to be pronounced with a "y" sound as part of the "e", similarly to the vowel at the start of Ельцин (Yeltsin).
Presumably that's because of a lack of orthographic knowledge on my part... or is it something more subtle (say, the belorusian language differing from Russian)? I have a vague memory of languages in the former Yugoslavia being either "ekavsky" or "ijekavsky".
Presumably that's because of a lack of orthographic knowledge on my part... or is it something more subtle (say, the belorusian language differing from Russian)? I have a vague memory of languages in the former Yugoslavia being either "ekavsky" or "ijekavsky".
I agree. There is a lot of armchair whining here. Are people really in favour of an invasion of Belarus?
Why are you talking like there's no middle between not doing anything and a full on invasion?
From the top of my head:
- Divert EU planes to avoid Belarus.
- Prevent Belarus' aeroplanes from flying over the EU.
- Increase sanctions towards Belarus officials.
etc etc
From the top of my head:
- Divert EU planes to avoid Belarus.
- Prevent Belarus' aeroplanes from flying over the EU.
- Increase sanctions towards Belarus officials.
etc etc
Yes, and all of them take time to be put into motion. A lot of different parties will have to agree, including immoral profit-driven scum like Ryanair. That's what democracy looks like in practice; it ain't as pretty and orderly as a tyrannical dictatorship, where one guy says something and everyone complies right away.
All of that means it's early to complain about any lack of European reaction. In some areas there has been a strong response already, and it will likely get stronger in the next few weeks.
All of that means it's early to complain about any lack of European reaction. In some areas there has been a strong response already, and it will likely get stronger in the next few weeks.
Yes, but, remember mh-17 - the plane with 200 dutch citizens that russians blasted out of the sky in 2014? I'm sure strong response from the EU is coming in any minute now.
Russia was sanctioned as part of the annexation of Crimea, of which that crime was part.
Well that's a most uncharitable characterisation of Ryanair. They are indeed profit-driven but they are unashamedly upfront and, frankly, honest about this. Their ruthless efficiency enables cheap flights across Europe, which was largely out of reach to previous generations. I'm not sure how they really differ from other successful profit-driven businesses, other than perhaps their marketing approach. You can choose not to fly with them of course, but many do, and wouldn't consider themselves immoral for doing so.
After this very incident, they continued flying over Belarus like nothing had happened. They couldn't sacrifice even a penny of profit, after one of their very own passengers had been kidnapped, to guarantee the safety of their customers. That was scummy, but absolutely in character for a business that doesn't even pretend to care about anything but their money. It took European law to make them provide the bare minimum of human comfort to their passengers.
I often have little alternative but to fly with Ryanair, as the airport in my hometown has been effectively taken over by them during a downturn. I honestly don't even experience much of the "cheapness" - for one reason or another, flying with my kids always ends up costing as much as on a regular airline. They currently owe me 600 quid for a flight I had booked pre-pandemic which obviously got cancelled - and they'd rather sit on a "voucher" for a decade rather than refund me, of course. I'm happy they changed the market a bit, but that was 30 years ago, now they're just a garden variety sociopathic business.
I often have little alternative but to fly with Ryanair, as the airport in my hometown has been effectively taken over by them during a downturn. I honestly don't even experience much of the "cheapness" - for one reason or another, flying with my kids always ends up costing as much as on a regular airline. They currently owe me 600 quid for a flight I had booked pre-pandemic which obviously got cancelled - and they'd rather sit on a "voucher" for a decade rather than refund me, of course. I'm happy they changed the market a bit, but that was 30 years ago, now they're just a garden variety sociopathic business.
Thanks, yes, these are realistic, and might be in the way of being implemented.
(Also probably will get counted as "toothless". That's kinda of my point)
(Also probably will get counted as "toothless". That's kinda of my point)
Couldn't agree more. The pattern is basically:
1. High-ranking official says they're "gravely/deeply/very concerned" within the first 24-48h.
2. Some EU parliament member mentions the problem within two or three weeks, shaming other members. A clip of this few minutes long speech gets shared all over social media.
3. Absolutely nothing happens until everyone forgets about the issue.
Over and over again, issue after issue, day after day.
1. High-ranking official says they're "gravely/deeply/very concerned" within the first 24-48h.
2. Some EU parliament member mentions the problem within two or three weeks, shaming other members. A clip of this few minutes long speech gets shared all over social media.
3. Absolutely nothing happens until everyone forgets about the issue.
Over and over again, issue after issue, day after day.
Is this better or worse than the US pattern of sanctions and drone strikes?
Would you prefer a strong, centralised EU government with a strong leader (aka dictator)?
Well, I don't.
But this is the only way to take direct action - as the individual members are not of a single mind.
Well, I don't.
But this is the only way to take direct action - as the individual members are not of a single mind.
Democracies can be capable of quick direct action too. See U.S. esp. U.S. some 50-70 years back. Democracy is no excuse for being inefficient, if democracies don't find a way to protect their values and interests, they will eventually be replaced by more efficient states
I was just explaining to my children that there was a time when the USA government employed censors (an actual job title) to control television content.
Much that the USA was or did 50-70 years ago was decidedly not democratic and not their proudest moment.
Much that the USA was or did 50-70 years ago was decidedly not democratic and not their proudest moment.
Ah yes, the glory days of "quick direct action" in Vietnam and Cambodia. What fun was had by everyone! What progress was achieved! We should totally long for that.
These are examples of unsuccessful wars, although we don't know how many times the possibility of American intervention prevented USSR from starting theirs. Korean war was partially successful though, the whole Korea could look like North Korea if US didn't intervene
I think the US has demonstrated enough "possibility of intervention" since 1991, wouldn't you agree...? Kuwait is "free" but Iraq is lost to Iran, Afghanistan and Rwanda are still a mess.
Guns don't solve everything.
Guns don't solve everything.
I would consider intervention in Yugoslavia pretty successful actually, instead of genocidal nationalist dictatorship we have a couple of democracies - not without their problems, but still no comparison to Milosevic regime.
Interventions in Iraq, Lybia and Syria can be seen as failures if we consider the bold goal to bring democracy to the Middle East. But at least these countries don't attack other countries any more - ISIS as evil as it is can't cause as much harm as these could.
In any case I guess with Eastern Europe it's more likely to work like it did in Yugoslavia than in Middle East. Belarus has really strong civil society, all they are missing is really some guns.
Interventions in Iraq, Lybia and Syria can be seen as failures if we consider the bold goal to bring democracy to the Middle East. But at least these countries don't attack other countries any more - ISIS as evil as it is can't cause as much harm as these could.
In any case I guess with Eastern Europe it's more likely to work like it did in Yugoslavia than in Middle East. Belarus has really strong civil society, all they are missing is really some guns.
Yugoslavia was screwed up in the first place by foreign countries sponsoring separatists in Slovenia and Croatia. When that predictably turned out to be a terrible idea, “we” then decided to solve it with bombs, and while doing it we came pretty close to massive escalation with the Russians. We barely mopped up a mess of “our” own making, and it’s still a mess down South. “Successful” is not a word I would use.
Lybia is more of a mess than under Qaddafi, which means the issues with migration to Europe have worsened and the Lybians themselves are worse than they were. Same for Iraq. I won’t get into Syria since that wasn’t really a straight military intervention.
Yea, what Belarus really needs now is a good civil war, so that Putin can annex more territory on one side and we can create a new border that will be forever disputed. Or, as alternative, we can have them be the casus belli for thermonuclear war between NATO and Russia, that will work great.
Or you know, we can wait. Worst case scenario, Lukashenko sooner or later will die. Best case, enough of his security apparatus will decide he’s not worth propping up anymore. Either way, no guns required.
Lybia is more of a mess than under Qaddafi, which means the issues with migration to Europe have worsened and the Lybians themselves are worse than they were. Same for Iraq. I won’t get into Syria since that wasn’t really a straight military intervention.
Yea, what Belarus really needs now is a good civil war, so that Putin can annex more territory on one side and we can create a new border that will be forever disputed. Or, as alternative, we can have them be the casus belli for thermonuclear war between NATO and Russia, that will work great.
Or you know, we can wait. Worst case scenario, Lukashenko sooner or later will die. Best case, enough of his security apparatus will decide he’s not worth propping up anymore. Either way, no guns required.
"centralised EU government with a strong leader (aka dictator)?"
Those are the only two options? Like how you can either have people dying because they cant afford a surgery, or you become EUSSR?
Those are the only two options? Like how you can either have people dying because they cant afford a surgery, or you become EUSSR?
Sometimes it's the slow and steady diplomacy that affects the biggest change over time.
What good is quick action going to do?
It might be better to let this guide trading policies in the future.
What good is quick action going to do?
It might be better to let this guide trading policies in the future.
for the guy that's being detained (or worse) right now every minute kind of counts
It's cold, but in the long run one person probably doesn't matter that much.
No offense to Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but he probably wasn't worth trouble :)
No offense to Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but he probably wasn't worth trouble :)
The difference here is the European politicians will be scared shitless if they fly over a country where they think they might get arrested.
Politicians scare easily and will protect themselves. If journalists can be arrested so can politicians.
Politicians scare easily and will protect themselves. If journalists can be arrested so can politicians.
That's because EU is too expanded to be able to reach consensus. Individual countries are taking action however
Can individual countries yank airport landing slots? That would get attention.
This is where professional politicians need to learn a lesson from the Great Orange One. If Buttigieg had just answered "No, I don't think our passenger planes are safe over Bellarus anymore, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to protect the safety of US citizens flying in Europe", that would have been fine.
[deleted]
Considering the recent revelations that Russia is literally blowing shit up in NATO countries (Bulgaria, Czechia) and EU and NATO's lack of response, this will most likely not result in any meaningful reaction either.
What is the probability of this account being owned by Russian government?
I would say 99% and you’re just perpetuating the same propaganda.
I would say 99% and you’re just perpetuating the same propaganda.
Golergka has been here longer than you and has a much larger online footprint than you do. The chances of you being a propaganda account are larger than theirs. Besides the obvious rule violation I think you should probably apologize. Flagging this comment.
You can't attack another user like that, and we ban accounts that do. Please read the site guidelines and stick to the rules from now on. Note this one:
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've posted endlessly for many years about how the overwhelming majority of such accusations are based on nothing but fantasy—poisonous fantasy, which it is not ok to pollute the threads with, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. No more of this please, regardless of political orientation or ideology or nation.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've posted endlessly for many years about how the overwhelming majority of such accusations are based on nothing but fantasy—poisonous fantasy, which it is not ok to pollute the threads with, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. No more of this please, regardless of political orientation or ideology or nation.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
No, much smaller. I would agree that the EU's foreign policy is a disaster because of traditionally corrupted elites. The fact that the russian elites are even more corrupted is not an excuse.
EU doesn’t have a joint foregin policy. Foregin relations is still an intergovernmental matter.
„The Common Foreign and Security Policy […] deals only with a specific part of the EU's external relations, which domains include mainly Trade and Commercial Policy and other areas such as funding to third countries, etc”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Po...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Po...
This is a random result when you search for Borrell in Moscow. Look for his behavior in Turkey if you want some more examples of how random this guy is while he is considered an EU representative. His position requires for him to coordinate responses of the 27, but he is just wandering around wasting time and resources. As far as the EU is an economic powerhouse, letting dictators do whatever they want while allowed access to the market is making him irrelevant.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/borrell-...
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/borrell-...
Some EU member states (Hungary, Poland) are very much against handing over any diplomatic power to the High Representative. Hungarian government is basically acting as a Putin proxy here and Polish ruling party feeds on constant conflict.
No, they're not a Putin proxy. What they're doing is literally pissing against the wind. A recent example: Hungary has bought vaccines from Russia and China which are not approved by the EMA. Now their recipients are basically not recognised as vaccinated and will face travel issues.
I agree. At the same time Borrell has enough independence to make him a distinct face. He decides where he goals, what to say, how to behave when the EU is being mocked. Even if you say that he is just a glorified PR, he is an awful PR.
It looks that I'm picking on him, but he is just a very good example. I can talk a lot about others, but this thread is politicized enough already.
It looks that I'm picking on him, but he is just a very good example. I can talk a lot about others, but this thread is politicized enough already.
The HR post is a bit of an in-joke in European circles. It's being given to 2nd-rate European politicians who like to travel, and has zero effective power. The hard decisions are all taken among NATO members and are then ratified in the European Council.
Sadly this is one of the current issues of the EU project, nation-states flatly refuse to hand over anything related to defense. It's a great victory for the US.
Sadly this is one of the current issues of the EU project, nation-states flatly refuse to hand over anything related to defense. It's a great victory for the US.
Yeah, the HR role has been systematically sabotaged since its inception, by way of appointing weaker and weaker nominees and starving it of any real power. At the moment it's a glorified PR position, with no decisional power whatsoever. Javier Solana effectively lost the battle for being the EU "foreign minister" and since then it's all been about individual member states.
Chances are this will not change until there is a serious rethinking of the European role in NATO. As long as the big decisions are taken there, there is no real role for an EU "ministry" beyond trade interests.
Chances are this will not change until there is a serious rethinking of the European role in NATO. As long as the big decisions are taken there, there is no real role for an EU "ministry" beyond trade interests.
as it should be, the EU states act collectively at most trough NATO and the current decade EU so focused on being the political voice of its members is something being tacked on against the initial premise by which its members came together; the EU should always had been an economic union first to combat the tremendous advantage of the internal market that both USA and China enjoy and nothing more.
Click on my username and go through my latest comments. If I'm a Russian propaganda troll, I must be a really elaborate one.
Why would a russian troll argue for stronger action agains russian allies?
An excerpt from HN rules:
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data.
It has been a joke outside of Russia, also... I share your hope.
Right now a broad ban on Belavia flights to Europe is a very likely outcome.
>This will likely have no consequences to the regime in Belarus
That's the problem with sanctions, at some point you run of of things to take away. From then on your target can pretty much do what ever they want, knowing that things can't really get any worse.
That's the problem with sanctions, at some point you run of of things to take away. From then on your target can pretty much do what ever they want, knowing that things can't really get any worse.
Current sanctions on Belarus are somewhere between light and negligible.
There are a lot more things that could be taken away.
There are a lot more things that could be taken away.
Expanding the sanctions to affect the entire country / citizenry has the side-effect of pushing populism there even closer to Russia, materially and emotionally, without having much effect on the actual bad actors beyond what the current sanctions do.
Traditionally a next step would be political, then material, support for an organized internal opposition, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious one in this case.
Traditionally a next step would be political, then material, support for an organized internal opposition, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious one in this case.
Economic sanctions can be aimed at Belarusian elites and state enterprises: ban on direct export to Belarus of luxury goods, advanced technology, ban on certain imports etc. At the same time freedom of movement with transit routes via Russia or Ukraine should be encouraged, to support low-volume trade and grey market. The bigger is shadow economy and the less concentrated is private sector, the more difficult is it for the regime to control it. It stimulates low level corruption and reduces loyalty of the law enforcement, increasing the chances of the opposition in the future.
> Economic sanctions can be aimed at Belarusian elites and state enterprises
Yes, this is already happening since last year, and was already scheduled to be expanded for a fourth time in June. I assume this clinches that, and probably more.
But the fact nobody seems to know there's been sanctions since last year suggests my other point - they're woefully ineffective as long as they can get other support.
Yes, this is already happening since last year, and was already scheduled to be expanded for a fourth time in June. I assume this clinches that, and probably more.
But the fact nobody seems to know there's been sanctions since last year suggests my other point - they're woefully ineffective as long as they can get other support.
Sanctions are almost always too weak. Any sanction that the government can withstand is too weak and will have the affect you describe. A strong sanction that says "release the prisoner immediately" will be short and not affect citizens long enough to create such a sentiment.
What kind of sanction do you have in mind?
No use of airspace and no trade with NATO countries until the prisoners are released. It would take a week.
No use of airspace is already being discussed and likely going to happen.
NATO is a military alliance, not a trade union. There's no way for them to organize what you're suggesting.
> It would take a week.
Fidel might like to have a word with you...
NATO is a military alliance, not a trade union. There's no way for them to organize what you're suggesting.
> It would take a week.
Fidel might like to have a word with you...
NATO members do talk to each other over a lot of different channels. It will take more than a week to organize, but it can be done.
But it will be as e.g. an EU action, not a NATO action. (I have doubts they will get anyone on the west side of the Atlantic to sign on, but I hope I'm wrong.) And the EU has already been acting.
My point is: There's a lot of people in this thread demanding a vague "something" be done, but it's really not clear whether there is "something" between what the EU's plan has already been for months and a hot war, other than some ill-considered immediate panic.
My point is: There's a lot of people in this thread demanding a vague "something" be done, but it's really not clear whether there is "something" between what the EU's plan has already been for months and a hot war, other than some ill-considered immediate panic.
Was Fidel being offered sanctions to end by releasing a specific hostage? Or was he being asked to relinquish power?
Not so. Sanctions can be devastatingly effective applied by a significant majority of the world over a length of time. Sanctions were the instrument that brought an end to the Apartheid regime in South Africa: sanctions, having brought the South African economy to its knees, were a key factor in forcing the ruling regime to the negotiating table.
Yes, in some fairytale world the ruling National Party could have continued "doing whatever they want". Here in reality things would certainly have got worse, and the National Party government could see that the end-game was inescapable. Sanctions worked then, and they'll work again.
Yes, in some fairytale world the ruling National Party could have continued "doing whatever they want". Here in reality things would certainly have got worse, and the National Party government could see that the end-game was inescapable. Sanctions worked then, and they'll work again.
I know a little about this; it's pretty controversial, historically, whether Western sanctions, vs. decades of civil war and violent insurrection (often backed by subvert support from the Kremlin with the CIA playing defense) in SA and neighboring states were the catalyst. There are plenty of historians / economists who would argue that sanctions made things worse for the people of South Africa (much the same is said today about sanctions against Iran). In any event, that sanctions where "the" instrument that brought an end to apartheid should not be stated as if it were a universally accepted fact.
Let's ignore how ridiculous it is to give the West the credit for ending apartheid and that the economic growth of South Africa really doesn't back up your claim that sanctions were the key.
Even assuming you're right about the cause, the success story of sanctions would be a South African economy that never recovered leading to the suffering of millions. That's what happens when they "work."
Even assuming you're right about the cause, the success story of sanctions would be a South African economy that never recovered leading to the suffering of millions. That's what happens when they "work."
What about Cuba? North Korea? Iran? They’ve been sanctioned for decades with devastating human consequences and little to no sign of those sanctions spurring any meaningful change.
I don't disagree with you but I do wonder whether for sanctions to be successful relies a lot on the way the population is feeling about the regime at the start. If they population decides to dig in, then the sanctions start to have a negative effect (in terms of getting a desired outcome).
If on the other hand the population is already angry at the regime, maybe it has the desired effect.
Idle musing without supporting evidence.
If on the other hand the population is already angry at the regime, maybe it has the desired effect.
Idle musing without supporting evidence.
Only the US sanctioned Cuba and while it was pretty harmful, they were still able to trade with most other countries. North Korea has China right next door as a big trade partner, and can trade with many non-US countries as well. As for Iran, from what I can tell UN sanctions really only started to ramp up in the 2010s and those did have an effect in getting Iran to suspend its nuclear program.
Edit: But to be clear, I think the US sanctions on Cuba are gratuitous and cruel. Cuba is not some rogue state and there are many worse dictatorships that aren't sanctioned. However, I think it reinforces the point that "sanctions can be devastatingly effective applied by a significant majority of the world" because in the Cuba case the rest of the world didn't agree.
Edit: But to be clear, I think the US sanctions on Cuba are gratuitous and cruel. Cuba is not some rogue state and there are many worse dictatorships that aren't sanctioned. However, I think it reinforces the point that "sanctions can be devastatingly effective applied by a significant majority of the world" because in the Cuba case the rest of the world didn't agree.
> Only the US sanctioned Cuba and while it was pretty harmful, they were still able to trade with most other countries.
There were considerable limits (particularly on foreign investment in Cuba) because parts of the US sanctions regime include retaliatory sanctions on entities making use of certain property in Cuba (some of these were suspended for a while, but restored under Trump in 2017.)
There were considerable limits (particularly on foreign investment in Cuba) because parts of the US sanctions regime include retaliatory sanctions on entities making use of certain property in Cuba (some of these were suspended for a while, but restored under Trump in 2017.)
The impact of sanctions against apartheid SA get talked about a lot because it's a good example of international cooperation for non-violent activism.
Unfortunately talking only about sanctions ignores that plenty of governments resisted and watered down the sanctions because the apartheid regime's anti-communist ideology.
The negotiations to phase out apartheid for a democracy began mere months after the fall of the Berlin wall. At that point the collapse of the USSR was imminent, and the apartheid regime's utility as an anti-Communist outpost had expired.
Unfortunately talking only about sanctions ignores that plenty of governments resisted and watered down the sanctions because the apartheid regime's anti-communist ideology.
The negotiations to phase out apartheid for a democracy began mere months after the fall of the Berlin wall. At that point the collapse of the USSR was imminent, and the apartheid regime's utility as an anti-Communist outpost had expired.
>, knowing that things can't really get any worse.
But also knowing that things can get better. The incentive to do the "right" thing doesn't disappear. It only can't be increased further.
But also knowing that things can get better. The incentive to do the "right" thing doesn't disappear. It only can't be increased further.
Russia and Belarus make money from the planes flying over their airspace. They won't be collecting that money so there is at least one consequence.
Clarification: not just these 2 countries. I wonder if all countries do it.
Most of them do, but most will also waive it for flights originating or departing from said country.
Some countries go above and beyond; Russia typically grants overflight access to one airline per country, so SAS has the ability to fly over Russia while Norwegian Air never has.
Some countries go above and beyond; Russia typically grants overflight access to one airline per country, so SAS has the ability to fly over Russia while Norwegian Air never has.
Probably correct but not sure Russia’s rule applies here? SAS is Swedish/Danish and Norwegian is, well, Norwegian.
Wikipedia[1] says: Scandinavian Airlines, usually known as SAS, is the flag carrier of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
In any case grandparent poster is probably just repeating info out of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U&t=382s
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines
In any case grandparent poster is probably just repeating info out of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U&t=382s
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines
I like that idea, this is the perfect *nonviolent* answer to this.
The EU's response is so important here, they have already proved time and time again they are a dog which is all bark and no bite.
I'm sure China and Turkey are watching eagerly.
It doesn't have to be a military response, but no response or the typical waving the finger in the air, can not be afforded here.
The EU's response is so important here, they have already proved time and time again they are a dog which is all bark and no bite.
I'm sure China and Turkey are watching eagerly.
It doesn't have to be a military response, but no response or the typical waving the finger in the air, can not be afforded here.
> they have already proved time and time again they are a dog which is all bark and no bite.
People keep saying that as if that was a kind of universally acknowledged wisdom.
Here is a map of the 39 countries targeted by European sanctions (not counting the ones specifically targeting ISIS territories or various regions of Ukraine): https://sanctionsmap.eu/#/main
There has been sanctions against Belarus for a while, suspended when they freed political prisoners, reinstated in light of the recent crackdown on elections. Here is the list of the 88 persons and 7 legal entities under EU sanctions (well technically, Council of Europe): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Turkey doesn't have to "watch", they also received sanctions after the drilling standoff two years ago.
People keep saying that as if that was a kind of universally acknowledged wisdom.
Here is a map of the 39 countries targeted by European sanctions (not counting the ones specifically targeting ISIS territories or various regions of Ukraine): https://sanctionsmap.eu/#/main
There has been sanctions against Belarus for a while, suspended when they freed political prisoners, reinstated in light of the recent crackdown on elections. Here is the list of the 88 persons and 7 legal entities under EU sanctions (well technically, Council of Europe): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Turkey doesn't have to "watch", they also received sanctions after the drilling standoff two years ago.
I'm an EU citizen we obviously have a different viewpoint on this but the link you sent to me shows precisely all bark in my opinion.
Holding off on a few weapons exports here and there is meaningless.
> People keep saying that
If it's the general concensus there may be some reason for that. I'm sure Belarus wouldnt try this with a US plane.
> Turkey doesn't have to "watch", they also received sanctions after the drilling standoff two years ago.
If the reaction to hijacking an EU plane flying from one EU nation to another is indeed just some export/import sanctions, then yes I do think Turkey will find that interesting.
Holding off on a few weapons exports here and there is meaningless.
> People keep saying that
If it's the general concensus there may be some reason for that. I'm sure Belarus wouldnt try this with a US plane.
> Turkey doesn't have to "watch", they also received sanctions after the drilling standoff two years ago.
If the reaction to hijacking an EU plane flying from one EU nation to another is indeed just some export/import sanctions, then yes I do think Turkey will find that interesting.
[deleted]
Well, read the link again: the sanctions include a list of names, whose assets are frozen, who can't travel in EU and companies that have the same fate.
Economic sanctions are the most effective non-military actions states can take against each others.
Short of military invasion what do you suggest EU does?
Economic sanctions are the most effective non-military actions states can take against each others.
Short of military invasion what do you suggest EU does?
UK company -> UK plane
[deleted]
I don't think passenger airline companies have the authority to close the airspace of a country. That would have to be a political decision.
They certainly have the ability to decide on the route their planes take, if not others.
Don’t airlines pay for airspace utilization rights?
> no consequences
MH17 being shot down meant a huge diversion of flights over a well trafficked route. It's not huge but the overflight fees add up after a while if people avoid crossing your borders, effective ATC in most countries rely on these aeronautical charges coming in every year.
While the effects might not be immediate and a stubborn government can shrug it off, there is certainly long-term consequences if airlines make a decision to declare a country off-limits for routes.
MH17 being shot down meant a huge diversion of flights over a well trafficked route. It's not huge but the overflight fees add up after a while if people avoid crossing your borders, effective ATC in most countries rely on these aeronautical charges coming in every year.
While the effects might not be immediate and a stubborn government can shrug it off, there is certainly long-term consequences if airlines make a decision to declare a country off-limits for routes.
What will increase the costs for the regime is putting sanctions on potash sales, which is the primary source of foreign currency there. Of course, Russia would just make up for it, but they had a hand in this as well, so attach a dollar value to this geopolitical hooliganism.
The airlines making those decisions have no incentive (or likely desire) to punish Belarus or engage in international politics.
They just don't want their planes diverted by MiGs.
They just don't want their planes diverted by MiGs.
Consequence will be that Belarus can no longer divert planes and capture dissidents. They've also made themselves even more of a pariah.
Ukraine just closed air connection with Belarus. Latvia sent out Belarusian diplomats.
> This will increase costs to Belarusian airlines, which would be a problem to the regime.
First of all it'd be a problem to the people of Poland and Ukraine, but I guess virtue signalling matters more than real problems.
First of all it'd be a problem to the people of Poland and Ukraine, but I guess virtue signalling matters more than real problems.
In case you missed, yesterday a plane flying from Athens to Vilnius was intercepted by Belarusian fighter jet and a helicopter and landed in Minsk, to arrest an opposition journalist.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57219860
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57219860
This appears to be copied word-for-word from the Aviation Herald, the original source: http://avherald.com/h?article=4e7d7208
Edit: seems this is allowed by AV Herald under certain circumstances [1]:
> If you purchase a subscription, you are allowed to republish any textual information provided by our articles during your subscription period in any form within your publication - you are allowed to copy and paste our articles onto your website/newspaper/magazine - provided you credit The Aviation Herald properly by providing a link to our original article.
And the footer of that article says:
> This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Anyway, it's probably better to link directly to the original (also a lighter website).
1. http://avherald.com/h?faq=
Edit: seems this is allowed by AV Herald under certain circumstances [1]:
> If you purchase a subscription, you are allowed to republish any textual information provided by our articles during your subscription period in any form within your publication - you are allowed to copy and paste our articles onto your website/newspaper/magazine - provided you credit The Aviation Herald properly by providing a link to our original article.
And the footer of that article says:
> This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Anyway, it's probably better to link directly to the original (also a lighter website).
1. http://avherald.com/h?faq=
The diverted plane has been discussed here yesterday at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27255561 .
It’s odd to me that the Ryanair flight yesterday was already closer to its destination of Vilnius than Minsk when it turned around.
Ryanair said that the crew had been "notified by Belarus (Air Traffic Control) of a potential security threat on board and were instructed to divert to the nearest airport, Minsk".
So they didn’t have an incident onboard? There were no hijackers claiming to have a bomb? Just ATC telling them they have a bomb on board? And instead of landing at the nearest airport of Vilnius they turned to take a longer, more indirect route to a further away airport of Minsk?
This would seem obviously suspicious to me. If you have a bomb on board, wouldn’t you want to go to the nearest airport, not the one further away? Wouldn’t you ask why you are being redirected further away? Then wouldn’t the response when you point out you’re closer to Vilnius and for safety want to land there make it clear to you something fishy was up? I would love to hear the radio communications and any communications back to Ryanair operations on this one.
Ryanair said that the crew had been "notified by Belarus (Air Traffic Control) of a potential security threat on board and were instructed to divert to the nearest airport, Minsk".
So they didn’t have an incident onboard? There were no hijackers claiming to have a bomb? Just ATC telling them they have a bomb on board? And instead of landing at the nearest airport of Vilnius they turned to take a longer, more indirect route to a further away airport of Minsk?
This would seem obviously suspicious to me. If you have a bomb on board, wouldn’t you want to go to the nearest airport, not the one further away? Wouldn’t you ask why you are being redirected further away? Then wouldn’t the response when you point out you’re closer to Vilnius and for safety want to land there make it clear to you something fishy was up? I would love to hear the radio communications and any communications back to Ryanair operations on this one.
That would be the normal procedure, but there is not much to do when the aircraft is pursued and escorted by fighter planes. Any country has jurisdiction over their airspace, including shooting down any non-compliant aircraft.
They sent a fighter jet. I don't think the pilot had much of a choice.
Yeah, this. No civil-aviation pilot is going to argue the fine points of law while in target range of an armed MiG.
Ai have serious doubts that they would date shoot down the plane, but obviously this is such a wild scenario for a normal pilot that they cannot be blamed for not turning it into a game of chicken
Why is this downvoted?
> It’s odd to me that the Ryanair flight yesterday was already closer to its destination of Vilnius than Minsk when it turned around.
Closer, but it had the wrong altitude for Vilnius. They were intercepted earlier. See this visualization
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1396482250812841986
Closer, but it had the wrong altitude for Vilnius. They were intercepted earlier. See this visualization
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1396482250812841986
Very interesting! Is there a sensible explanation for this? Have they known up-front that the flight is going to be diverted? Or maybe they were radio-ed before, and there was some discussion / negotiation (during which time, they aborted their descent to Vilnius)...
[deleted]
A plane slows down in descent to an airport, so my guess would be that they tried to leave Belarusian airspace as fast as possible, but it wasn't fast enough.
This is a published rule of Belorussian airspace. If there is a terrorist threat onboard a plane in it the plane cannot leave the airspace and must land in Belarus.
I don’t know if this is a common rule or not. Maybe it was intentionaly established for situations like this?
You want to fly over uninhabited areas. Distance comes next.
[deleted]
But Ryanair havent
https://www.flightradar24.com/RYR7BJ/27cf72bf
FR3340 flying from Pafos, Cyprus to Tallin, Estonia, is about to cross from Ukraine into Belarus airspace
A route avoiding Belarus would have added at 56 miles to the 1740 mile journey, about 3%.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=pfo-tll,pfo-EPBP-tll
https://www.flightradar24.com/RYR7BJ/27cf72bf
FR3340 flying from Pafos, Cyprus to Tallin, Estonia, is about to cross from Ukraine into Belarus airspace
A route avoiding Belarus would have added at 56 miles to the 1740 mile journey, about 3%.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=pfo-tll,pfo-EPBP-tll
Ryanair would sell their own mother to get more profits
Adding an extra 50 yards to any single Ryanair flight would likely bankrupt the company
buy the "No kidnapping" package for an extra cost of $169.99/person
There are companies that would insure you if you needed it, but I'm guessing this may not apply to a state-sanctioned kidnapping.
Depends on the state and how much you're willing to pay.
Tier 3, extraction by mercenaries -- pay more for extra comfy helicopter. Tier 2, extraction by bribery. Tier 1, your captor will be overthrown in a coup backed by a foreign government. Not applicable if your captor is one of the following states: blah blah blah.
Tier 3, extraction by mercenaries -- pay more for extra comfy helicopter. Tier 2, extraction by bribery. Tier 1, your captor will be overthrown in a coup backed by a foreign government. Not applicable if your captor is one of the following states: blah blah blah.
Also known as “don’t fly RyanAir”.
Aircraft don't fly in straight lines in Europe, though. A 100 (nautical) mile difference is more realistic. Still, a tiny detour compared to the Wizzair flight linked elsewhere.
we ended up in such situation because there are usually no consequences of governments doing bad to their citizens. UN is a joke. All sanctions are applied only against Russia, but for any other case/country what governments are usually doing are cheap words: "condemning/concerned/we are deeply ..." that's all.
There is no consensus inside UN on what is good and what is bad for people, countries have veto rights, which shouldn't exist if there were clear guidelines on what is allowed and what is not. Please show us some real actions and make authoritarian regimes feel pain for doing harm. Shutdown all the incoming and outgoing flights to/from Belarus, including transits and goods.
There is no consensus inside UN on what is good and what is bad for people, countries have veto rights, which shouldn't exist if there were clear guidelines on what is allowed and what is not. Please show us some real actions and make authoritarian regimes feel pain for doing harm. Shutdown all the incoming and outgoing flights to/from Belarus, including transits and goods.
If the UN were used in the way you are suggesting, the UN wouldn't exist.
https://www.un.org/un70/en/content/history/index.html
> The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.
If UN is committed to do something good for having better living standards and human rights, then they must keep their promise and try to do something, otherwise just stop pretending being someone you are not and shutdown this organization.
I think we have passed the point in human history where local/national interests were above any other interests, now we should think about interests of humans. Be it Russian, Belarus, Palestinian, Israeli, Uighur, Armenian, black or white and so on, if human rights are violated, action should be taken and there must be a consequence for violating it, not only words thrown. US shouldn't have veto rights when rights of humans are violated, be it your best friend Israel or Saudi Arabia.
> The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.
If UN is committed to do something good for having better living standards and human rights, then they must keep their promise and try to do something, otherwise just stop pretending being someone you are not and shutdown this organization.
I think we have passed the point in human history where local/national interests were above any other interests, now we should think about interests of humans. Be it Russian, Belarus, Palestinian, Israeli, Uighur, Armenian, black or white and so on, if human rights are violated, action should be taken and there must be a consequence for violating it, not only words thrown. US shouldn't have veto rights when rights of humans are violated, be it your best friend Israel or Saudi Arabia.
You can think what you want, but the reality is that the majority of the world still lives in poverty and ignorance, with all that it entails (and even the well-educated are not exactly guaranteed to have the same priorities as you, e.g. Israel). If you go around invading every human-right-violatin' piece of land, very soon you won't have an army.
The UN has its issues, like the League of Nations before that, but it's still a place where the world tries to communicate and (occasionally) solve (some) problems. It has lasted longer than the LoN precisely because it has not taken the "activist" bent of its predecessor. It cannot solve everything, maybe even anything, but it's still better to have such an assembly than not having it. If anything, it provides some legitimacy to humanitarian efforts, when enough countries in the Security Council agree on a deployment.
The UN has its issues, like the League of Nations before that, but it's still a place where the world tries to communicate and (occasionally) solve (some) problems. It has lasted longer than the LoN precisely because it has not taken the "activist" bent of its predecessor. It cannot solve everything, maybe even anything, but it's still better to have such an assembly than not having it. If anything, it provides some legitimacy to humanitarian efforts, when enough countries in the Security Council agree on a deployment.
> If you go around invading every human-right-violatin
I am not saying invading, what I am saying is taking real actions by sanctioning all equally, not just sanctioning Russia because some EU countries or the US doesn't like it, but also sanction Saudi Arabia and Israel for violating human rights.
I am not saying invading, what I am saying is taking real actions by sanctioning all equally, not just sanctioning Russia because some EU countries or the US doesn't like it, but also sanction Saudi Arabia and Israel for violating human rights.
It’s impossible for the UN to both (a) grant membership to every broadly recognized independent country in the world and (b) consistently act in support of human rights.
> UN is a joke.
I just finished reading "Washington Bullets" [1]. (Part of) It is a crash course into how and why institutions like UN, IMF etc. are they way they are.
And honestly, I just feel paralyzed after reading the book. These institutions just don't have the clout by design.
[1]: https://www.librarything.com/work/25426761/book/200164537
I just finished reading "Washington Bullets" [1]. (Part of) It is a crash course into how and why institutions like UN, IMF etc. are they way they are.
And honestly, I just feel paralyzed after reading the book. These institutions just don't have the clout by design.
[1]: https://www.librarything.com/work/25426761/book/200164537
UN is a forum where countries can talk to each other in a more or less moderated way. But I can see your point - UN is useless when it comes to dealing with dictators, stopping crimes against humanity while they happen, etc.
This affects me directly since i am working outside of Belarus now and rely on air travel to visit my family, still this feels like the only reasonable answer to KGB messing with airlines. I am expecting that most planes to Belarus, from EU are going to be cancelled and people will have to reroute their travel through Moscow.
In general it is terrifying how far my country went down the path of turning into another Turkmenistan\North Korea over the last 1 year+. Belarus was never a great example, of having fair courts ot great cops, but now it is just horrible. Half of my friends spent some time in jail, over the last year. Some were protesting actively, some wore clothing of "political colours" and were spotted by cops, some were arrested just because they were walking on the street and cops were in the mood to stir things up. Courts turned into a show where no matter how you were arrested or what was the basis for your arrest, you will get a fine and a few weeks (best case scenario - 15 days) in prison. Sadly, i feel that things are not going to get better anytime soon.
tldr: Donbass and Belarus. Fly around if you wanna live.
In general it is terrifying how far my country went down the path of turning into another Turkmenistan\North Korea over the last 1 year+. Belarus was never a great example, of having fair courts ot great cops, but now it is just horrible. Half of my friends spent some time in jail, over the last year. Some were protesting actively, some wore clothing of "political colours" and were spotted by cops, some were arrested just because they were walking on the street and cops were in the mood to stir things up. Courts turned into a show where no matter how you were arrested or what was the basis for your arrest, you will get a fine and a few weeks (best case scenario - 15 days) in prison. Sadly, i feel that things are not going to get better anytime soon.
tldr: Donbass and Belarus. Fly around if you wanna live.
arodyginc(4)
I'm in the same spot. When I was leaving the country after then-"election" in 2006, I had to wait until the engineer I was handing the project over to finished his 30-day prison sentence.
This year even my ever optimistic friends who were never intent to move have been sent packing. The hijacking makes things even worse for the unwillingly growing Belarusian diaspora, but there should not be mucking around. I advocate for the strongest pushback possible, even though anticipating a lacklustre response.
This year even my ever optimistic friends who were never intent to move have been sent packing. The hijacking makes things even worse for the unwillingly growing Belarusian diaspora, but there should not be mucking around. I advocate for the strongest pushback possible, even though anticipating a lacklustre response.
My close circle of friends, mostly moved to nearby countries Estonia, Ukraine, Poland and even Russia. One family has returned because they got homesick and being an immigrant is generally hard. But no one is planning to stay in Belarus, right now you can't be sure that tommorow you won't become a criminal without any guilt of your own and it is not getting any better.
And anything that hurts regime is worth it, no matter how anemic it might seem, in the long run it is all worth it.
And anything that hurts regime is worth it, no matter how anemic it might seem, in the long run it is all worth it.
Aye. And in my age cohort noone really emigrates unless they are really compelled by circumstances.
But now it appears we're getting some pushback from the EU. Less than I hoped (so far), but more than I feared.
But now it appears we're getting some pushback from the EU. Less than I hoped (so far), but more than I feared.
Lukashenko will not go down without a fight, and Russia is very unwilling to see a color revolution again next to its borders. Putin dreams of annexing Belarus.
Couple this with the EU's overall weakness and fragmented interests (eg nordstream 2), and it's hard to imagine a good outcome.
A few sanctions will come out of this that will make EU officials look good and further place Belarus into Russian hands (namely, as you wrote, making Belarus airspace dependent on Russian airspace). Let's see what the real leader of the EU has to say.
If the EU can't stand for the people of Belarus, for the sake of freedom and human rights, then it will have once again failed.
Couple this with the EU's overall weakness and fragmented interests (eg nordstream 2), and it's hard to imagine a good outcome.
A few sanctions will come out of this that will make EU officials look good and further place Belarus into Russian hands (namely, as you wrote, making Belarus airspace dependent on Russian airspace). Let's see what the real leader of the EU has to say.
If the EU can't stand for the people of Belarus, for the sake of freedom and human rights, then it will have once again failed.
It is not that clear that Russia all that happy about the incident. A girlfriend of Roman Protasevich, who is a Russian citizen, was also detained and that already caused PR issues for Kremlin.
Plus there is even comments from Russia’s Duma about how this can be damaging for Russia.
Plus there is even comments from Russia’s Duma about how this can be damaging for Russia.
Protasevich was tracked in many countries before he entered this plane, tracked by someone doing that very professionally engaging a lot of resources. It is hard to imagine Belarus was doing this alone, without Russia support.
No, the head propagandists (RT's Simonyan, Solovyev) are ecstatic and can't stop congratulating KGB.
No one will stand for Belarus. Sanctions have the effect of running Belarus into Russian\Chinese debt pit even further.
Until the military sides with opposition (it won't) there will be no changes at all. Even if military gets involved, there will be russian "voluteers" (see Russian volunteers in Moldova 90, Balkans 92-01, Chechnya 93, Ukraine 14 ) that are there to help fight new "junta".
And then it will result in Ukraine II: electric boogaloo. Eastern Belarus is de-facto a part of Smolensk oblast' with some Russia funded murderers creating an "independent" republic. This was played out to death over the last 30 years.
And don't get me wrong. All while this will be happening, EU will be very concerned, that is for sure.
None of this will happen ofc, because all resistance will be suppressed with excessive force, at the very start. No trials, no judges.
Until the military sides with opposition (it won't) there will be no changes at all. Even if military gets involved, there will be russian "voluteers" (see Russian volunteers in Moldova 90, Balkans 92-01, Chechnya 93, Ukraine 14 ) that are there to help fight new "junta".
And then it will result in Ukraine II: electric boogaloo. Eastern Belarus is de-facto a part of Smolensk oblast' with some Russia funded murderers creating an "independent" republic. This was played out to death over the last 30 years.
And don't get me wrong. All while this will be happening, EU will be very concerned, that is for sure.
None of this will happen ofc, because all resistance will be suppressed with excessive force, at the very start. No trials, no judges.
Apart from fuel prices, is there any economic impact? Do air carriers pay anything to the countries they fly over? (dunno, covering ATC costs?)
https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-charge-foreign-air...
Yes it costs to fly through a country's airspace.
Yes it costs to fly through a country's airspace.
A good policy, were the European Council agree on a half-decent response, would be to directly reimburse any airline for the extra costs of flying around Belarusian airspace. At that point even the Ryanair scum would probably agree to the detour.
Passengers can pay their tickets. If the flight path is a bit longer because of regulations they pay a bit more. No tax money needed for this.
Huh? Why US airspace is so extended?
I found a map for that https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ab...
I found a map for that https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ab...
That is not a map of US airspace, and I wonder very severely at your motivation for claiming that it is.
That is a map of responsibility for air traffic control/flight information services. The US has a responsibility to provide those services across a huge region of the Pacific; probably because they're the only large country with presence in that region. They charge for these services for aircraft which are not otherwise subject to US taxes.
The Atlantic is a little more interesting as it appears to cover the Bahamas; but one surmises that the majority of traffic in the region is nevertheless bound for the US East coast (note how it avoids Canada-Europe route sharply, and only protrudes into the Caribbean around PR).
That is a map of responsibility for air traffic control/flight information services. The US has a responsibility to provide those services across a huge region of the Pacific; probably because they're the only large country with presence in that region. They charge for these services for aircraft which are not otherwise subject to US taxes.
The Atlantic is a little more interesting as it appears to cover the Bahamas; but one surmises that the majority of traffic in the region is nevertheless bound for the US East coast (note how it avoids Canada-Europe route sharply, and only protrudes into the Caribbean around PR).
From this flightradar track, it seems WizzAir is also doing this.
Ryanair is not though :-)
https://www.flightradar24.com/RYR7BJ/27cf72bf
https://www.flightradar24.com/RYR7BJ/27cf72bf
Interesting - they avoid Russia (it appears overflying Russia instead would also be about the same distance and involve only one overfly fee).
Russia actually only allows one airline per country to overfly, generally[1]. So if Aer Lingus already has the concession, Ryanair can't even pay. Also, doesn't really solve this because Russia wouldn't have an issue doing exactly this either.
1: https://simpleflying.com/overflight-fees/
1: https://simpleflying.com/overflight-fees/
Seems Ryanair has not learned much though. PFO-->TLL RYR7BJ is traversing Batka's personal airspace as I write this comment.
Please don't use the word batka to refer to Lukashenko. The word means father, and it was originally used to mock Belarusian for supposedly liking his approach to ruling the country. He's no father to any of us, and it's insulting to Belarusians to see someone referring to him this way.
Your comment is pertinent, so I won't change mine. Apologies.
In my country the word is frequently used to carry sarcasm towards the role that Lukashenko believes himself to have. In other words, it is meant as sarcasm towards the tyrant's ego, not the gullibility of the nation.
In my country the word is frequently used to carry sarcasm towards the role that Lukashenko believes himself to have. In other words, it is meant as sarcasm towards the tyrant's ego, not the gullibility of the nation.
i think you are mistaken here. Bat'ka in this context is more like Bat'ka Mahno, ie. a leader outside of formal rules and leading more by personal power like a leader of a gang or a rebellion (or for example in Belarussian context - "Bat'ka Minay", a commander in WWII Belarussian guerilla resistance https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%80%D1%91...).
> it was originally used to mock Belarusian for supposedly liking his approach to ruling the country.
not even close. It has always been used in the "leader" meaning described above.
>He's no father to any of us, and it's insulting to Belarusians to see someone referring to him this way.
as nobody uses it as "father" in this context it is hard to see your point.
> it was originally used to mock Belarusian for supposedly liking his approach to ruling the country.
not even close. It has always been used in the "leader" meaning described above.
>He's no father to any of us, and it's insulting to Belarusians to see someone referring to him this way.
as nobody uses it as "father" in this context it is hard to see your point.
Sounds like a good idea.
Though this trick (of capturing a dissident by forcing a plane down) probably only works once.
Though this trick (of capturing a dissident by forcing a plane down) probably only works once.
The very sad thing is that there’s a lot of firms in Silicon Valley that do a lot of business with Belarus, totally ignoring the monstrosities of Lukashenko.
Mapbox for example, sources a considerable amount of its workforce from Minsk, and they’re little better than slaves because they can’t quit or complain or they’ll be sent to the mines.
We sit here and say that this kind of behavior is villainous, but we happily do business with those who profit off of the suffering of others. For shame.
Mapbox for example, sources a considerable amount of its workforce from Minsk, and they’re little better than slaves because they can’t quit or complain or they’ll be sent to the mines.
We sit here and say that this kind of behavior is villainous, but we happily do business with those who profit off of the suffering of others. For shame.
> or they’ll be sent to the mines.
Are you sure? Any sources? That sounds like bs to me. While IT job market is shrinking, even if ppl quit there is still a large pool of jobs in pretty much any direction.
Are you sure? Any sources? That sounds like bs to me. While IT job market is shrinking, even if ppl quit there is still a large pool of jobs in pretty much any direction.
> they can’t quit or complain or they’ll be sent to the mines
Working in IT in Belarus is highly coveted, highly cushy (often 4-day work-weeks, company retreats, WFH, etc), and pays 5x ~ 10x average salary (i.e. you become moderately rich, very fast).
If you don't like working for one IT company, you can switch to another one.
Some are US-standard crappy Wordpress mills or whatever, but if you're working in IT you're not oppressed and you're not lucky: you're a person with skills that are in-demand and you're getting well compensated for using them.
Working in IT in Belarus is highly coveted, highly cushy (often 4-day work-weeks, company retreats, WFH, etc), and pays 5x ~ 10x average salary (i.e. you become moderately rich, very fast).
If you don't like working for one IT company, you can switch to another one.
Some are US-standard crappy Wordpress mills or whatever, but if you're working in IT you're not oppressed and you're not lucky: you're a person with skills that are in-demand and you're getting well compensated for using them.
European countries should now close their air space to any flights in or out of Belarus until this guy is surrendered in good health.
I can predict exactly what European countries will do in response to this horrible atrocity. They will express the deepest of all possible concerns. That's all they'll do. In fact that's all they can do. They simply don't have any other alternative.
What hasn't been mentioned at all is that Belavia/Minsk is a major corona restriction loophole. Last year they massively expanded their traffic to transport people via Minsk if more direct flights were not available. Obiviously money was more important than public safety . Lukashenka has stated that Wodka helps against Covid-19.
Whether that still holds this year I don't know. I have not studied flight schedules for a while.
If yes forbidding Belavia to land in EU countries might have an even bigger effect than usual.
Whether that still holds this year I don't know. I have not studied flight schedules for a while.
If yes forbidding Belavia to land in EU countries might have an even bigger effect than usual.
Why do HN readers justify what US did to get Snowden? Hope you justify as well what they did to get Soleimani.
[deleted]
[deleted]
sneak(7)
Nothing material is going happen as Germany needs that gas pipe. It's obvious from the news that this hijack was done together with Russia.
Germany insistence on closing nuclear power plants is doing Europe a lot of harm. It opens up one of the great powers of Europe to be controlled by Russia.
France is much smarter in this regard. They are pushing nuclear and successful in that. This is why Germany buys electricity from them.
It's just making an option for energy cheaper.
Russia needs it too, since they can't sell with profits internally.
From my POV, it's just an additional option you get to sanction them with if they are acting in bad faith ( again) while getting cheaper options.
Russia needs it too, since they can't sell with profits internally.
From my POV, it's just an additional option you get to sanction them with if they are acting in bad faith ( again) while getting cheaper options.
That's akin to approving products made using forced labour because they are cheaper.
I think international community needs to shut down this little German-Russia thing going on. If we can learn anything from the history, such alliance never ended well for the rest of Europe.
International community just lifted sanctions against this little thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674
The only option it gives is to shut down gas for Ukraine while supplying their friends in Germany.
Germany has general election this September and since Merkel is gone for good there is a huge possibility that the CDU (the majority party for several years now and was in favor of NordStream) will lose to green party. Green party is completely against NordStream2.
So things might actually change. But then again, it is easy to criticize when you are not in power.
So things might actually change. But then again, it is easy to criticize when you are not in power.
My feeling as someone looking from outside, is that Merkel was forced to continue and buy gas from Russia because of the public outcry against nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster. The Green party might not be so eager to support nuclear, either. So then, without nuclear, without gas, there isn't a lot of choice for Germany in terms of energy.
Probably you're right, however if they win and suddenly start supporting russian gas they would be looking like complete hyporcites.
Merkel has done plenty of things without major public support. She could have declared "wir schaffen es mit Atomkraft" and the country would likely have accepted that.
Germany should really consider term limits for the bundestag and chancellor. Allowing a single politician to rule the country for an entire generation is absurd.
The limit is not set, however chancellor must be voted in every 46 to 48 months.
However your second point is not correct at all, Germany had made their beurocracy specifically in such a way after WW2 that one person cannot dictate/rule the country. Every decision must pass through appropreate ministries first. This is one of the reasons COVID vaccination rollout was so slow in the beginning but after all the "approvals" were met they are vaccinating ~1m people a day. Chancellor in Germany is not even close to power of President in US, for example.
However your second point is not correct at all, Germany had made their beurocracy specifically in such a way after WW2 that one person cannot dictate/rule the country. Every decision must pass through appropreate ministries first. This is one of the reasons COVID vaccination rollout was so slow in the beginning but after all the "approvals" were met they are vaccinating ~1m people a day. Chancellor in Germany is not even close to power of President in US, for example.
Thank you for the clarification -- but Merkel has been in power for over 15 years. I don't care how many interested parties and fellow bureaucrats keep re-electing her, or that her position is less-than-queen. For the rest of the world, she's the face of Germany. Time for a new one -- like maybe after 5 years at the helm.
As much as I despise the Russian regime, the American sabotage of that project aren't much better. Power to Germany if they decide to choose which party they hand control to. At least this way the American influences are limited because of competition in the energy space. With the US desperately clinging to remain their control over the European energy market, Russia's attempts to take their place and Germany's nonsensical denouncement of nuclear energy, the entire project is a cesspool of power struggles and corruption.
I don't find Russian involvement very believable. Belarus don't need Russia to force a plane to land, they can do their own state-funded terrorism like any dictatorship.
I don't find Russian involvement very believable. Belarus don't need Russia to force a plane to land, they can do their own state-funded terrorism like any dictatorship.
The central government doesn't even want that pipe all that badly anymore, it's mostly the clowns governing the federal state of Mecklenburg-Prepommerania who want to continue.
Ryanair pilots just made a statement. It looks like
it was not that bad: https://twitter.com/Trexorman/status/1396775300650917888/pho...
On 21st of October 2016 Ukraine did the same to Belavia flight, including fighter jet etc. I haven't heard of any international uproar or calls to ban Ukrainian air companies / avoid airspace.
https://www.rt.com/news/363763-ukraine-belavia-antimaidan-pl...
A pertinent difference is that the plane started out in Ukraine and was compelled to return. Still, this seems quite unusual.
A pertinent difference is that the plane started out in Ukraine and was compelled to return. Still, this seems quite unusual.
Lie, it's far from "the same". The flight started from Kyiv and still was in the Ukrainian airspace.
A policy that might achieve something would be if the Baltic states, together with Poland and Ukraine, would close their airspace to Belavia planes, until the detained passenger is delivered to his destination in Vilnius.
This will increase costs to Belarusian airlines, which would be a problem to the regime.