81–90 of 422 posts
Nice that something more than strongly worded letters was done.
EU gets to appear "tough" while, unfortunately, this is only going to hurt people of Belarus. This is only going to help Lukashenko's narrative that the West is plotting against Belarus.
What would the alternative be? Do nothing?
Broadcast from neighbouring countries.
It's probably not very rational, but it would be fun :)
All bark no bite. Assuming they got help from Russia, the gas pipeline (Nord Stream 2) is still going as planned. Germany must be sweating right now, how to look like as if they are actually committed to any sanctions, but in reality to not compromise their little joint project with Russia.
And is sadly supported by most big Bundestag parties (with Grüne being the only exception but for all the different reasons).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They told them to, but airlines are free to do whatever they want.
Air France, Lufthansa, airBaltic & SAS already said they would not fly over belarus anymore
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say banning Belorusian airlines after Belorus hijacked a plane (and kidnapped passengers) is like having your kid kidnapped and proclaiming that the kidnapper isn't welcome in your house. Edit: s/Belorussian/Belorusian
They also sanctioned involved individuals. It's more like a family kidnaps their own kid while he was at your birthday party, and as response you get a restraining order and freeze some of their bank accounts.
It's kind of a sign of weakness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) I am not supporting also this one, especially as it was a sad case of vassalisation 2) Refusing to allow use of airspace is different from hijacking plane and abducting people. If someone is using "state piracy" only for the second one it is entirely defensible. EDIT: 3) at least in this case I can say that my country (Poland) was not complicit, though probably mostly because they were not asked by USA to do so. 4…
> 1) I am not supporting also this one, especially as it was a sad case of vassalisation Don't get me wrong I agree. > 2) Refusing to allow use of airspace is different from hijacking plane and abducting people. If someone is using "state piracy" only for the second one it is entirely defensible. Not much different the plane was forced to land in Austria. Also this was a diplomatic mission, unlike commercial flights…
This is, unsurprisingly, wrong.
The situation Evo Morales' plane was wrong, and was caused by several EU countries shamefully bending to America's manhunt for Snowden, but it was well within jurisdiction. Three countries closed their airspace to the plane, which they were fully within their rights to do. As an official state plane, the Chicago Convention didn't apply to it, and state flights explicitly require separate authorization to overfly a country (Article 3 of the Chicago Convention).
The hijacking by Belarus was blatantly against aviation law, and upcoming investigations will definitely confirm that. Countries may force airplanes in their airspace to land, but only under some circumstances:
> every State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, is entitled to require the landing at some designated airport of a civil aircraft flying above its territory without authority or if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that it is being used for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of this Convention
The plane was flying on authorized flight path and nobody claimed that it was really being used as a military or spy plane, which is what the "inconsistent purpose" amounts to.
Or what if Russian ATC are ordered to route planes flying from the east to Belarussian airspace. Of course there's probably a bit of freedom to choose routes by pilots, but if I were Putin I'd just say (or tell my ATC to say): "those routes are closed because of military training, your only available route is here through Belarussia"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The citizenship of the victim doesn't really matter. You're are not the property of the country where you are a citizen. Especially, not if you live abroad.
Are you saying a kid is the property of his family...? Anyway, citizenship matters, it is one of the many elements that determine jurisdiction. The US taxes and prosecutes (!) his citizens anywhere in the world, for example; and extradition is a thing. Legal protection to a foreign citizen abroad is extended by the host country, and that's really what the problem is here: the journalist was effectively protected by E…
Hehe, I'll admit that's not a good argument.
> but Belarus invaded our legal space with a competing jurisdiction claim...
They violated an international convention on to which they had signed. In turn it seems reasonable that we no longer extend any benefits pertaining to said convention.
Which is sort of exactly what we're doing.
Unfortunately, the real losers of this situation will be the Belarusian people, many of whom have immigrated to nearby countries like Poland or Germany. They will now (probably) be unable to visit family members easily, as flights will have to reroute through Istanbul or Russia. Pretty much the same situation with Iran. Actions intended to punish an unjust government mostly just hurt their citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying over Belarus might be a good income for the country - no longer. An interesting shift of the last decade or so of sanction wars is that sanctions must be targeted against the regime , not the people. Otherwise it's a bit of an own goal - you give the regime a bogeyman to point at. As such, this seems like a good, pragmatic type of sanction. Few regular Belarusians will feel the impact, but it does strike at th…
I'm not sure if Belarussians having to cancel their holidays to the West and going to Crimea instead is going to have the desired effect of driving sympathies among Belarussians toward the west. Moreover the people who actually like Lukashenko will probably be pretty indifferent to this. They weren't planning on flying to Berlin any time soon. I'm almost certain Putin will jump on the chance to have alternate routes…