7 ms·

This is an incredible assault on EU right. A flight leaving EU soil, arriving to EU soil was diverted and forced to land on a country essentially ruled by a str

by kensai 5y ago

This is an incredible assault on EU right. A flight leaving EU soil, arriving to EU soil was diverted and forced to land on a country essentially ruled by a strongman, in order to arrest an opposition journalist. Of course Lukashenko has the backing of Putin, so it is a slippery slope. I wonder how the EU will react. This is a major transgression.

seppel 5y ago
> This is an incredible assault on EU right. A flight leaving EU soil, arriving to EU soil was diverted and forced to land on a country essentially ruled by a strongman, in order to arrest an opposition journalist. Note that the EU did something similar: The forced Evo Morales to land in Vienna (on a flight from Moskow to Bolivia) because they suspected Snowden on the flight.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Not EU, but some of the EU member countries (France, Spain, Portugal and Italy). They denied flyover permission to that aircraft, causing it to divert. Since it was heading for Bolivia it obviously had enough fuel to go back to Moscow, if needed - for instance if Snowden had actually been onboard. The thing that happened today (faked bomb alert and landing order accompanied with a fighter jet escort) is not on the same level.
  - adolph 5y ago
    Is a window with different dressing not the same window? Does the window matter or the dressing? Belarus is clumsier than the US but the game is the same.
    - ars 5y ago
      A threat of violence is a very large difference, I would not call that just window dressing. Also lying (fake bomb threat) is a big difference. It's like the difference between someone stealing your wallet, vs. letting you play some kind of street game where you don't actually have a chance of winning. The method employed matters, it's not just about the final result.
      - tpmx 5y ago
        Also, the final result also isn't the same. Today's hijacking: the result was that the journalist was arrested and now may be facing the death penalty. The denial of flyover rights to Morales' jet: there was no risk of capture to Snowden - worst case, he'd just have to back to Moscow. If he had been on the flight.
        mannerheim 5y ago
        We don't know if Snowden wouldn't have been arrested in Austria had he been on the flight.
        tpmx 5y ago
        Again, if Snowden had been on the flight, they could have returned to Moscow. Yes, there was obvious BS from Morales' pilots about uncertain fuel readings - if that had been true the actions of those EU countries saved the life of Morales and others onboard.
        Natsu 5y ago
        What are they charging this guy with, anyway? The article has no details on that whatsoever.
        tpmx 5y ago
        It's an actual dictatorship, does it matter?
        Natsu 5y ago
        Probably not, but it's weird to leave that out.
      - danlugo92 5y ago
        USA good Russia bad. Or USA bad Russia good. Both situations are crap. I see it like: egomaniacs running those 2 governments, bad.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
agilob 5y ago
Serious question: what can EU, Greece and Lithuania do? Send angry letter?
- mrandish 5y ago
  There is a lot they could do but the question is what they are willing to do. Right now they only appear willing to "object loudly" which they know will accomplish nothing. If they really want to get this guy released and set a deterring precedent they would start playing hardball, which could include things like: * Deny Belarus aircraft the right transit anywhere in the EU. * Do so while some Belarus aircraft are on the ground in the EU and don't allow them to leave. This effectively holds those planes hostage as a bargaining chip, though it's really leverage on the Belarus airlines (and the planes themselves are probably leased). But it still creates problems for the regime. * Refuse to allow the transit of any Belarus top officials anywhere in the EU. Start expanding this list daily to include more people and their direct families and make the directive permanent until the guy is released. Once you get the spouses of a couple dozen of the top people in the regime contemplating spending the rest of their lives without Italian vacations or Parisian shopping - much less just being able to go anywhere other than Russia - you're starting to cause some hard conversations about how much making an example of this guy is really worth. Sadly, I doubt the EU will do any of this type of stuff but barring that, there's really no incremental cost to Belarus, nothing will happen and this guy is screwed.
  - agilob 5y ago
    >Sadly, I doubt the EU will do any of this type of stuff but barring that Yes, nothing happened after another rigged elections, Apparently around 30000 people are still detained since August, since brutally stopped protests. Nothing will happen again, but Belarus should be declared as space not safe for air transit.
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      I mean, Russian-employed militants in eastern Ukraine downed a civilian airliner and Russia suffered no serious consequences. Russia just denied and obfuscated. They've poisoned people with radioactive substances on NATO soil, without serious consequences. Just denials issued. Putin keeps calling the west's bluff. Having a nuclear arsenal seems to let you do that.
TravelnSalesman 5y ago
> EU right. A flight leaving EU soil, arriving to EU soil It's a great trick the NATO/EU expansionists have - expand NATO and the EU eastward (even though Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand eastward). Then start harping on about EU rights in jingoistic militarism against countries in the east. This is why the Croatian left was so unhappy about EU accession. Also contributed partly to why every region in England outside the London metro voted for Brexit.
- mopsi 5y ago
  > even though Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand eastward This is modern-day Russian propaganda that sprung up in 2007. Gorbachev denies that it ever happened.
  - john_doesky 5y ago
    Gorbachev confirms it in some interviews and denies in others. Here he confirms it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1933223/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/193... "The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."
  - TomWP 5y ago
    People never quotes Gorbachev conclusion in that article, since he denies your denial: "The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed." https://rg.ru/2014/10/15/gorbachev.html https://rg.ru/2014/10/15/gorbachev.html
    - mopsi 5y ago
      The article confirms what I said: > Mikhail Gorbachev: The issue of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all and did not arise in those years. I say this with all responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised it, including after the termination of the Warsaw Pact in 1991. Western leaders did not raise it either. > Another question was discussed, which we raised: that after the unification of Germany there would be no advancement of NATO military structures and the deployment of additional armed forces of the alliance on the territory of the then GDR. In this context, Baker's statement mentioned in your question was made. Kohl and Genscher spoke about the same. In summary: no discussion, no promises, no agreement. You misinterpret "violation of the spirit". He hoped for better future than currently is, a future of peace and cooperation that would not need Eastern Europe clinging to NATO for security from Russia and its puppets. Ideally, NATO would've become obsolete and Russians would be enjoying the same quality of life as Germans are. The reality is much bleaker and that 1990 spirit is dead. That's what he meant.

by kensai 5y ago

seppel 5y ago

> This is an incredible assault on EU right. A flight leaving EU soil, arriving to EU soil was diverted and forced to land on a country essentially ruled by a strongman, in order to arrest an opposition journalist. Note that the EU did something similar: The forced Evo Morales to land in Vienna (on a flight from Moskow to Bolivia) because they suspected Snowden on the flight.

tpmx 5y ago
Not EU, but some of the EU member countries (France, Spain, Portugal and Italy). They denied flyover permission to that aircraft, causing it to divert. Since it was heading for Bolivia it obviously had enough fuel to go back to Moscow, if needed - for instance if Snowden had actually been onboard. The thing that happened today (faked bomb alert and landing order accompanied with a fighter jet escort) is not on the same level.
- adolph 5y ago
  Is a window with different dressing not the same window? Does the window matter or the dressing? Belarus is clumsier than the US but the game is the same.
  - ars 5y ago
    A threat of violence is a very large difference, I would not call that just window dressing. Also lying (fake bomb threat) is a big difference. It's like the difference between someone stealing your wallet, vs. letting you play some kind of street game where you don't actually have a chance of winning. The method employed matters, it's not just about the final result.
    - tpmx 5y ago
      Also, the final result also isn't the same. Today's hijacking: the result was that the journalist was arrested and now may be facing the death penalty. The denial of flyover rights to Morales' jet: there was no risk of capture to Snowden - worst case, he'd just have to back to Moscow. If he had been on the flight.
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        We don't know if Snowden wouldn't have been arrested in Austria had he been on the flight.
        tpmx 5y ago
        Again, if Snowden had been on the flight, they could have returned to Moscow. Yes, there was obvious BS from Morales' pilots about uncertain fuel readings - if that had been true the actions of those EU countries saved the life of Morales and others onboard.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        What are they charging this guy with, anyway? The article has no details on that whatsoever.
        tpmx 5y ago
        It's an actual dictatorship, does it matter?
        Natsu 5y ago
        Probably not, but it's weird to leave that out.
    - danlugo92 5y ago
      USA good Russia bad. Or USA bad Russia good. Both situations are crap. I see it like: egomaniacs running those 2 governments, bad.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

agilob 5y ago

Serious question: what can EU, Greece and Lithuania do? Send angry letter?

mrandish 5y ago
There is a lot they could do but the question is what they are willing to do. Right now they only appear willing to "object loudly" which they know will accomplish nothing. If they really want to get this guy released and set a deterring precedent they would start playing hardball, which could include things like: * Deny Belarus aircraft the right transit anywhere in the EU. * Do so while some Belarus aircraft are on the ground in the EU and don't allow them to leave. This effectively holds those planes hostage as a bargaining chip, though it's really leverage on the Belarus airlines (and the planes themselves are probably leased). But it still creates problems for the regime. * Refuse to allow the transit of any Belarus top officials anywhere in the EU. Start expanding this list daily to include more people and their direct families and make the directive permanent until the guy is released. Once you get the spouses of a couple dozen of the top people in the regime contemplating spending the rest of their lives without Italian vacations or Parisian shopping - much less just being able to go anywhere other than Russia - you're starting to cause some hard conversations about how much making an example of this guy is really worth. Sadly, I doubt the EU will do any of this type of stuff but barring that, there's really no incremental cost to Belarus, nothing will happen and this guy is screwed.
- agilob 5y ago
  >Sadly, I doubt the EU will do any of this type of stuff but barring that Yes, nothing happened after another rigged elections, Apparently around 30000 people are still detained since August, since brutally stopped protests. Nothing will happen again, but Belarus should be declared as space not safe for air transit.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    I mean, Russian-employed militants in eastern Ukraine downed a civilian airliner and Russia suffered no serious consequences. Russia just denied and obfuscated. They've poisoned people with radioactive substances on NATO soil, without serious consequences. Just denials issued. Putin keeps calling the west's bluff. Having a nuclear arsenal seems to let you do that.

TravelnSalesman 5y ago

> EU right. A flight leaving EU soil, arriving to EU soil It's a great trick the NATO/EU expansionists have - expand NATO and the EU eastward (even though Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand eastward). Then start harping on about EU rights in jingoistic militarism against countries in the east. This is why the Croatian left was so unhappy about EU accession. Also contributed partly to why every region in England outside the London metro voted for Brexit.

mopsi 5y ago
> even though Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand eastward This is modern-day Russian propaganda that sprung up in 2007. Gorbachev denies that it ever happened.
- john_doesky 5y ago
  Gorbachev confirms it in some interviews and denies in others. Here he confirms it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1933223/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/193... "The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."
- TomWP 5y ago
  People never quotes Gorbachev conclusion in that article, since he denies your denial: "The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed." https://rg.ru/2014/10/15/gorbachev.html https://rg.ru/2014/10/15/gorbachev.html
  - mopsi 5y ago
    The article confirms what I said: > Mikhail Gorbachev: The issue of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all and did not arise in those years. I say this with all responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised it, including after the termination of the Warsaw Pact in 1991. Western leaders did not raise it either. > Another question was discussed, which we raised: that after the unification of Germany there would be no advancement of NATO military structures and the deployment of additional armed forces of the alliance on the territory of the then GDR. In this context, Baker's statement mentioned in your question was made. Kohl and Genscher spoke about the same. In summary: no discussion, no promises, no agreement. You misinterpret "violation of the spirit". He hoped for better future than currently is, a future of peace and cooperation that would not need Eastern Europe clinging to NATO for security from Russia and its puppets. Ideally, NATO would've become obsolete and Russians would be enjoying the same quality of life as Germans are. The reality is much bleaker and that 1990 spirit is dead. That's what he meant.