11 ms·

This will likely have no consequences to the regime in Belarus, while increasing costs to these Baltic airlines. A policy that might achieve something would be

by maratc 5y ago

This will likely have no consequences to the regime in Belarus, while increasing costs to these Baltic airlines. 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.

dekoruotas 5y ago
This has also been set in motion: https://i.redd.it/elts5rgbg0171.jpg https://i.redd.it/elts5rgbg0171.jpg
- motives 5y ago
  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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    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.
    - motives 5y ago
      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 https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq.
      - Aperocky 5y ago
        Well, I feel like it's important to point out that people can still fly direct from $nation to Europe despite the ban.
        varjag 5y ago
        Most of flights to Europe are codeshares with Belavia, so not really.
  - aphextron 5y ago
    >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 https://euobserver.com/justice/120734
    - hulitu 5y ago
      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.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      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.
      - aphextron 5y ago
        >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.
        ddalex 5y ago
        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.
- golergka 5y ago
  European diplomats being "strongly concerned" have long become a running joke here in Russia: https://twitter.com/ISEUConcerned 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.
  - thinkingemote 5y ago
    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?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      How will you know if the answer to this is honest or censored, though?
      - thinkingemote 5y ago
        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.
        kofejnik 5y ago
        > 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
varjag 5y ago
Right now a broad ban on Belavia flights to Europe is a very likely outcome.
mrweasel 5y ago
>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.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Current sanctions on Belarus are somewhere between light and negligible. There are a lot more things that could be taken away.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    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.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      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.
      - morelisp 5y ago
        > 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.
s_dev 5y ago
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.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Clarification: not just these 2 countries. I wonder if all countries do it.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    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.
    - oe 5y ago
      Probably correct but not sure Russia’s rule applies here? SAS is Swedish/Danish and Norwegian is, well, Norwegian.
      - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U&t=382s [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines
ramblerman 5y ago
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.
- Iv 5y ago
  > 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 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=CELEX:32021R0339&from=EN 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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ramblerman 5y 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.
stapled_socks 5y ago
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.
- vertis 5y ago
  They certainly have the ability to decide on the route their planes take, if not others.
ngcazz 5y ago
Don’t airlines pay for airspace utilization rights?
BelenusMordred 5y ago
> 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.
papito 5y ago
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.
cainxinth 5y ago
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.
tootie 5y ago
Consequence will be that Belarus can no longer divert planes and capture dissidents. They've also made themselves even more of a pariah.
chshrct42 5y ago
Ukraine just closed air connection with Belarus. Latvia sent out Belarusian diplomats.
jesterson 5y ago
> 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.

by maratc 5y ago

dekoruotas 5y ago

This has also been set in motion: https://i.redd.it/elts5rgbg0171.jpg https://i.redd.it/elts5rgbg0171.jpg

motives 5y ago
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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Aperocky 5y ago
  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.
  - motives 5y ago
    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 https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq.
    - Aperocky 5y ago
      Well, I feel like it's important to point out that people can still fly direct from $nation to Europe despite the ban.
      - varjag 5y ago
        Most of flights to Europe are codeshares with Belavia, so not really.
- aphextron 5y ago
  >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 https://euobserver.com/justice/120734
  - hulitu 5y ago
    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.
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    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.
    - aphextron 5y ago
      >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.
      - ddalex 5y ago
        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.
golergka 5y ago
European diplomats being "strongly concerned" have long become a running joke here in Russia: https://twitter.com/ISEUConcerned 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.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  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?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    How will you know if the answer to this is honest or censored, though?
    - thinkingemote 5y ago
      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.
      - kofejnik 5y ago
        > 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

varjag 5y ago

Right now a broad ban on Belavia flights to Europe is a very likely outcome.

mrweasel 5y ago

>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.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Current sanctions on Belarus are somewhere between light and negligible. There are a lot more things that could be taken away.
- morelisp 5y ago
  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.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    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.
    - morelisp 5y ago
      > 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.

s_dev 5y ago

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.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Clarification: not just these 2 countries. I wonder if all countries do it.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  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.
  - oe 5y ago
    Probably correct but not sure Russia’s rule applies here? SAS is Swedish/Danish and Norwegian is, well, Norwegian.
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U&t=382s [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines

ramblerman 5y ago

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.

Iv 5y ago
> 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 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=CELEX:32021R0339&from=EN 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ramblerman 5y 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.

stapled_socks 5y ago

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.

vertis 5y ago
They certainly have the ability to decide on the route their planes take, if not others.

ngcazz 5y ago

Don’t airlines pay for airspace utilization rights?

BelenusMordred 5y ago

> 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.

papito 5y ago

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.

cainxinth 5y ago

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.

tootie 5y ago

Consequence will be that Belarus can no longer divert planes and capture dissidents. They've also made themselves even more of a pariah.

chshrct42 5y ago

Ukraine just closed air connection with Belarus. Latvia sent out Belarusian diplomats.

jesterson 5y ago

> 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.