[HN Gopher] Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist...
___________________________________________________________________
Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition
says
Author : cjnicholls
Score : 651 points
Date : 2021-05-23 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| supergirl wrote:
| big outrage from europe. makes sense. but were they also outraged
| when US diverted Bolivia's presidential plane thinking Snowden
| was on board? can't blame Belarus for thinking this is the norm
| jessaustin wrote:
| The best reaction from the West would be to release another
| persecuted journalist, Julian Assange, from his unlawful and
| unjust imprisonment. Then we could all condemn Belarus in good
| conscience.
| zihotki wrote:
| Just a story from the history. Plane of Bolivian president was
| forced to land in Viena in July 2013 in order to search for
| Snowden after France and Portugal forbid it flying through their
| air space. I strongly belive that Russian propaganda will use
| that incident as a leverage.
|
| To be clear, I highly despise the Belarusian regime and I'm in
| full support of opposition. I could only hope that EU will do
| something in return but it looks like it's a standard way of
| handling the people politically considered to be terrorists. It's
| not the way it should be done neither by Belarus nor especially
| by US/NATO if they want to hold the peacekeepers flag. Otherwise
| it's just double standards and politics.
| aus-lander wrote:
| Protasevich, as far as I heard, openly called for actions which
| would be considered criminal in any western state (of course
| you don't hear about that from your "free press)". For this
| purpose he was possibly in contact with the western "secret
| services". I wonder how the west would act in a similar
| situation. Remember, Smowden WAS NOT in any kind of contact
| with Russia, and did not call neither to unlawful actions
| neither to violence against politicians. Still the plane of
| Morales was forced to land, and if Snowden waas there, he would
| get a treatment probably worse than that of Bradley Manning.
|
| But above all, I don't understand why you think you have any
| right whatsoever to tell others which governments are good or
| bad for them.
|
| And to all those who tell "we must react", ask yourself if you
| are prepared to die for "democracy in Belorussia". Because this
| is where it might end if you don't uderstand that the only
| place you do have the right to choose the government for is
| your "land of the free". So called , that is.
| altcognito wrote:
| I mean, Snowden actually ran off with state secrets and wasn't
| being targeted by a authoritarian like Putin or Lukashenko. He
| was being pursued for breakingbreaking laws NOT meant to
| protect the authoritarian, but to protect the rule of law as
| passed by its representative government.
|
| If you want to argue that there is no difference between an
| authoritarian state like Belarusa and Russia and the United
| States in the way they pursue and prosecute those that threaten
| the state, then go for it, but I'm not buying it.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Sounds like a Catch-22 to me: if any action done by the US
| cannot be considered authoritarian because the US is not an
| authoritarian state, then the US can never be considered an
| authoritarian state even when it acts like one.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I went to the DDR museum in Berlin today. Part of their
| display is a whole exhibit devoted to how the Stasi
| monitored the lives of ordinary East Germans.
|
| Honestly, it was kinda laughable. It was so primitive
| compared to what the 5 eyes routinely do to their own
| citizens with the aid of social media. Really, they tapped
| the phone lines but if you said "we shouldn't talk on the
| phone" that wasn't an admission of guilt or an indication
| that they should follow you.
|
| And the normal accusation was "mental illness" if you
| started behaving in ways that the regime didn't approve of.
| Glenn Greenwald's latest piece [0] on his struggles with
| corporate media rang the same bell: "Depicting critics of
| liberal orthodoxies as mentally ill, rage-driven bullies,
| and shadows of their former selves, is a long-time tactic
| of guardians of establishment liberalism to expel
| dissidents from their in-group circles." Replace liberalism
| with authoritarian socialism and same same.
|
| I was struck by how far we've gone towards something that
| even the East Germans considered untenable and intrusive.
|
| [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/corporate-medias-
| double-sta...
| achikin wrote:
| What Russia has to do with this incident?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Russia, through Putin, and Belarus, through Lukashenka, are
| very closely allied. Highlighted in the NYTimes coverage:
|
| _It underscored that with the support of President Vladimir
| V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Lukashenko is prepared to go to
| extraordinary lengths to repress dissent...._
|
| _In Russia -- where the state media described last year's
| uprising against Mr. Lukashenko as a Western plot -- the
| arrest met with approval among Mr. Putin's supporters.
| Margarita Simonyan, editor of the pro-Kremlin RT television
| network, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Lukashenko "played it
| beautifully." And Vyacheslav Lysakov, a member of Parliament
| allied with Mr. Putin, described Mr. Protasevich's arrest as
| a "brilliant special operation."_
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/23/world/europe/ryanair-
| bela...
| emn13 wrote:
| Evo Morales's plane was not forced to land in Vienna; it chose
| to:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
|
| What did happen was that countries caved to US pressure to deny
| even the possibility of snowden passing through their airspace.
|
| While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the
| moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign
| diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is...
| perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious.
|
| The fact that the plane even landed in Vienna at all might have
| been a (successful) PR stunt, since: _An audio tape was
| subsequently released which appeared to be a recording of the
| flight crew requesting to land in Austria on the grounds they
| "could not get a correct indication" of their remaining fuel
| levels."_ - really? How convenient.
|
| In any case it's nothing at all like the current case, except
| that it involved planes landing where they weren't originally
| headed for, due to political interference. Of course;
| superficial resemblances might be enough in the battlefield
| that is public perception.
|
| Edit: and if you read some of the other perceptions here e.g.
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03...
| - this all sounds like a rather convenient storm in a tea-cup.
| Given the convenience to Evo Morales, it all looks rather
| suspicious.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > While that's absurd and a rather impolite thing to do; the
| moral issue there small or non-existant; denying a foreign
| diplomatic delegation the right to enter your territory is...
| perfectly OK, even when your motivations are at best dubious.
|
| I'm glad you've declared this, I was worried that there was a
| moral component I had to think about.
| belter wrote:
| The Portuguese foreign ministry and the Spanish ambassador in
| Bolivia, ended up officially apologizing for the event to Evo
| Morales. Brazilian and Portuguese newspapers references
| below. (In Portuguese but online translators are pretty good
| these days :-)
| https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/mundo/2013/07/portugal-
| pe...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/mundo-bolivia-espanha-
| descul...
| vkou wrote:
| _How_ the pressure was applied is far less relevant than the
| intent behind it, and the accomplished results.
|
| The how only matters to questions of legality, not questions
| of morality.
|
| Yes, or no - should airplanes in flight be forced down so
| that third-party countries can make political arrests? The EU
| seems to think that the answer to that question is 'Yes'...
| As long as it's done by it, not to it.
| emn13 wrote:
| But the plane was _not_ forced to land in the first place.
| It landed under some flimsy excuse about being unclear how
| much fuel they had. The plane could have simply flown
| around. It could have returned.
| vkou wrote:
| Planes carry only enough fuel to get to their
| destination, plus a little more.
|
| If in the middle of the flight, you are told that you
| were _surprise_ - banned from flying over multiple
| countries in your flight plan, you are _forced_ to abort
| your flight and land, unless you want the plane to run
| out of fuel and crash in the middle of nowhere.
|
| And again - this is a pointless semantics game. Yes or no
| - is messing with airplanes, in flight, in order to make
| political arrests acceptable behaviour? You seem to think
| so (As long as its done in some particular way.)
|
| The only difference is that one of the two planes had
| more options for _where_ it could land. Both _had_ to
| land at somewhere other than their destination, though,
| unless the pilots wanted everyone on board to die.
|
| I don't give a rat's ass if France, Spain, Portugal, and
| Italy _can_ deny an in-flight commercial airplane access
| to their airspace to make a political arrest. They
| clearly _can_ , and _did_. I am asking you if they
| _should_ do that. Does that seem right to you?
| scatters wrote:
| The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across
| the Atlantic; it certainly had enough to make it back to
| Russia. If Snowden had been on board they would
| indisputably have done so. The choice to land in Austria
| was a political decision.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to
| their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly
| can, and did.
|
| I think GP has done a fabulous job explaining why this
| isn't true, so your continued assertions that it is are
| strange.
|
| Perhaps there are differences between these two
| circumstances after all?
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and
| we are good guys of course) and in another case it was
| them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun,
| it has always been like that, us vs them.
| bananabiscuit wrote:
| The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest
| army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US
| doesn't have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO
| bases scattered all over Europe do the talking.
|
| In the end both the US and Belarus grounded a plane for
| political reasons, and that's what makes the situation the
| same in many people's eyes. It's just that one of those
| countries doesn't have the clout to make its means look
| harmless and benign so had to resort to a fighter jet escort.
| csomar wrote:
| Apples and oranges. Snowden was an internationally (or most
| nations) wanted man, and had trouble moving. He knew he was
| targeted and any plane he'd use will be targeted.
|
| On the other hand, this hijacking probably took everyone off-
| guard. They also didn't divert the plane because of a wanted
| individual but they made up a fake reason. This is
| piracy/hijacking plain and simple.
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| Most of these Western journalists function as intelligence
| operatives with instructions to foment coups in non-West aligned
| states such as China, Venezuela, Iran, Russia and Belarus.
|
| The tech community is brilliant in some things but hopelessly
| naive in others.
| juanani wrote:
| It seems there is a positive correlation with intelligence and
| gullibility. I mean, you're so smart that you can program and
| count monies, this is because you are likely a modern day god
| which no one has figured out yet, and no mortal can fool your
| godly brain powers.
|
| Also, people everywhere on television seem to agree with your
| views, confirms your godlike logical thinking powers. All hail
| moneys!
| adolph wrote:
| _On 1 July 2013, president Evo Morales of Bolivia, who had been
| attending a conference of gas-exporting countries in Russia, gave
| an interview to the RT television network in which he appeared
| predisposed to offer asylum to Edward Snowden.[1] Snowden had
| fled the United States a month earlier after his disclosure of
| secret, widespread surveillance by the NSA, for which he faced
| criminal charges in the United States._
|
| _The day after his TV interview, Morales 's Dassault Falcon 900,
| carrying him back to Bolivia from Russia, took off from Vnukovo
| Airport, but was rerouted to Austria when France, Spain, Portugal
| and Italy reportedly denied access to their airspace, allegedly
| due to suspicions that Snowden was on board._
|
| _On 3 July, Jen Psaki, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of
| State, acknowledged that the U.S. had been "in contact with a
| range of countries across the world who had any chance of having
| Mr. Snowden land or even transit through their countries"._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
| [deleted]
| newacct583 wrote:
| Whataboutism is not an excuse.
|
| Also denying airspace passage is a solution in the _DIPLOMATIC_
| realm, which is how we want this sort of thing to be handled.
| Right?
|
| What happened here is that they deliberately let the plane into
| their airspace, faked a bomb threat, forced the plane down with
| air power while it was en route to a nearer city, and then
| arrested a political opponent.
|
| Sorry, that's just terrorism.
|
| (But yes, the way Snowden was treated was bad too. Still, this
| is much worse.)
| adolph wrote:
| Precedent came before whataboutism.
|
| Diplomacy is war by other means.
|
| https://libquotes.com/zhou-enlai/quote/lbg9n9m
| hilbertseries wrote:
| Sure if words don't have meaning then there's no difference
| here.
|
| In Snowden's case they knew that Snowden could not leave
| Russia, without being detained and potentially extradited.
| If Snowden was extradited he would be tried and go to
| prison, probably. Snowden of course shared state secrets,
| an act he knew was illegal.
|
| The activist organized protests and his plane was hijacked
| without prior notice. And now he will likely be executed,
| for organizing peaceful protests.
|
| Grow up.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| > The activist organized protests
|
| ...an act that he knew was illegal, just like Snowden
| did.
|
| There is no real difference, it's just that both of them
| pissed off powerful people while trying to do what is
| moral.
| hilbertseries wrote:
| You think there's no difference between non violent
| protest and sharing state secrets?!?!?
| [deleted]
| varispeed wrote:
| Wow something like this should be ruthlessly stamped out by the
| international community.
| hyko wrote:
| Wars have started over less than this.
|
| How long the democratic nations of Europe permit an autocratic
| regime in their bosom is an open question...if I was Belarus I'd
| keep my fucking head down.
|
| The thing about a destabilised world order is that _it works both
| ways_.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Belarus is backed by Russia. Russia is strong enough to make
| any attempt of invading Belarus to cost a lot of lives. And
| invading Russia itself is out of question because of nuclear
| response. That's how I see that geopolitical situation. War is
| very unlikely in my opinion.
| dandanua wrote:
| Waiting when those dictators with nuclear weapons will lose
| their mind completely can cost even more lives.
| [deleted]
| iso1631 wrote:
| > War is very unlikely in my opinion
|
| Which is a good thing, War rarely turns out well.
|
| An appropiate reaction would be to stop overflights of
| Belarus - which both eliminates the risk of Belarus forcing
| down civilian planes, and reduces Belarussian income
| arcturus17 wrote:
| There is country devolving into an autocratic regime _within_
| the EU (Hungary), and the EU doesn't seem to be doing much
| about it.
| pteraspidomorph wrote:
| There are two, Hungary and Poland, and they have each other's
| back. EU laws weren't designed to be resilient against two
| failing countries at the same time, so everything would have
| to be rethought, and we're notoriously slow and bureaucratic.
| I'm sure the pandemic didn't help either.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/eu-hungary-
| vet...
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| > The thing about a destabilised world order is that it works
| both ways.
|
| Maybe it took 30 years to become obvious to you but at least
| you got it - sadly that happened only when you ended being on a
| receiving end.
| [deleted]
| zihotki wrote:
| Let me bring in a story from the history. Plane of Bolivian
| president was forced to land in Viena in July 2013 in when it was
| suspected that Snowden is on the board after France and Portugal
| forbid it flying through their air space. I strongly belive that
| Russian propaganda will use that incident as a leverage.
|
| To be clear, I highly despise the Belarusian regime and I'm in
| full support of opposition. I could only hope that EU will do
| something in return but it looks like it's a standard way of
| handling the people politically considered to be terrorists. It's
| not the way it should be done neither by Belarus nor especially
| by US/NATO if they want to hold the peacekeepers flag. Otherwise
| it's just double standards and politics.
| protoman3000 wrote:
| I'm wondering, what kept them from outright shooting the plane
| down instead of lying about a bomb on board?How would the public
| have found out about what happened?
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| NATO has very heavy radar and ELINT coverage over that area,
| due to proximity to Kaliningrad. An intercept and shoot down
| would have been observed. Since the aircraft is Polish
| registered, and flying from Greece to Lithuania, it would be
| viewed as a direct attack on NATO.
|
| This more mild strategy worked perfectly: Lukashenko gets to
| execute a political threat on trumped up charges, and there's
| essentially zero risk of a reprisal other than further
| sanctions, which were going to happen anyhow.
|
| This is one of the reasons why I wish US/NATO had taken a
| stronger stand vs Russia's hybrid warfare tactics.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Potentially war that drags in the Russia, the EU, NATO and
| ultimately the US.
| protoman3000 wrote:
| These are interesting and good points. They also will probably
| torture the arrested journalist and try to get information out
| of him. Can't speak if dead.
| spoonjim wrote:
| I don't travel much anymore, but when I did I definitely made a
| point to select routes that avoided flying over basketcase
| countries. With the number of planes that have been shot down
| over war zones, or things like this, it's often feasible.
| koyote wrote:
| It's not always easy to achieve that unless you're willing to
| spend a lot of time and money.
|
| Europe to SE-Asia almost always involves flying over quite a
| few 'problematic' areas.
| vvpan wrote:
| Pardon me, but that just sounds paranoid. What are your chances
| after all...
| spoonjim wrote:
| Any more paranoid than not flying Boeing 737 MAX?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| It depends on the country or region. What are the chances to
| have a family member and a work colleague dead in the only 2
| plane crashes in the past 30 years in my country? Well, call
| it a coincidence, but for me it's a reality. If you fly only
| in Western Europe or USA, it is paranoid, if you get over
| Ukraine, Belarus or Afghanistan, it's precaution.
| varispeed wrote:
| As medical cannabis patient, I certainly avoid any routes that
| could potentially land (e.g. because of technical issue) in a
| country that is anti-disabled people.
|
| edit: why is this being downvoted? Certain countries have harsh
| drug laws and couldn't care less whether the use is legitimate
| or not. Even if you don't have any medication on you, but you
| have metabolites you can get yourself in prison. This should be
| called out, but it seems like people have succumbed to
| prohibitionist propaganda.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I don't know why you were downvoted, but your argument is
| disingenuous: the anti-drug laws are not anti-disabled
| people, this is probably a borderline case that was not
| considered in the legislation. Fake self-victimization may be
| why you were downvoted?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Noted elsewhere:
|
| _The Belarus plane hijack is a small reminder why it 's
| generally not a good idea to let governments know who is going to
| where. I'm not sure why governments that like to think of
| themselves as democratic don't see the risks._
|
| -- Alexander Bochmann
| https://mastodon.infra.de/@galaxis/106285985254850170
|
| I'd made a similar point following the assassination of Kim Jung-
| nam in 2017:
|
| _Travel and hospitality databases are widely accessible and
| shared amongst a tremendous number of organisations. State
| intelligence organisations might readily have access through
| their own state-run airline, or through private operations or
| plants within same. Similarly for terrorist, narco-criminal,
| money-laundering, or other organisations. Financial, banking, and
| payment-processing systems, only slightly less so. A P.I. license
| or position on a fraud or abuse desk at a major online retailer,
| or any skip-tracing agency, can have access to such information._
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5ud243/data_ar...
|
| What is your threat model?
|
| Note that _your own_ threat model may not include possibilities
| which put _others_ at risk.
|
| (In fairness, it appear that Protasevich was followed onto the
| plane itself, suggesting that in-flight availability of manifests
| played little role. The question of what _pre-flight_
| intelligence methods were employed remains open.)
| rodgerd wrote:
| Something similar has happened with the Thai government -
| seizing people from transiting flights to apply Thai lese-
| majeste laws to foreigners who were not expecting to end up in
| Thailand.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't see this happening though. It would seem reasonable to
| limit the countries seeing the passenger list to those
| countries that the plane is taking off from/leaving though.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Except you have the emergency landing possibilities which
| require cooperation. And after all a country has a
| right/obligation to know who moves trough its territory.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Imagine, it wasn't the case prior to mid-nineties.
|
| International air travel was possible with paper tickets.
|
| Heck, you could've travel, immigrate, and settle all around
| Europe without papers prior to a certain mentally
| challenged emperor deciding to ruin it all.
| smegger001 wrote:
| prior to a certain mentally challenged emperor deciding
| to ruin it all
|
| You might have to be more specific there have been more
| than a few of those in European history
| lovecg wrote:
| If a government cares enough to deploy fighter jets to hijack a
| plane like this in violation of every international norm, you
| can be sure it has the resources to know where you are at all
| times regardless of how tightly those databases are locked
| down.
|
| Edit: for improved discourse as pointed out
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Your shallow dismissal not only ignores a substantial portion
| of my linked article concerning risks and actual case
| history, but even the portion quoted above.
|
| Information is not power, information is a _power
| multiplier_. It enables actions (including attacks and
| defences) to be specifically focused and targeted.
|
| In the case of Kim Jung-nam, two women (by all accounts
| innocent accomplices) managed to kill a significant political
| target in what they thought wasn an entertainment prank by
| splashing him with liquid, on the ground, at an airport.
|
| Critical to the success of that attack was not access to
| supersonic military jet fighter aircraft, but simply knowing
| where and when the target would be in a specified location.
|
| Information that's now broadcast to accuracy of centimetres
| and seconds on many hundreds of millions if not billions of
| people worldwide right now.
|
| To give another example I've noted previously, what rights to
| privacy should a rhinocerous have?
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/25ll1v/does_a_.
| ..
| qubex wrote:
| > _Information is not power, information is a power
| multiplier._
|
| That's deep and insightful, and now that you've written it,
| perfectly obvious in hindsight.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Thanks, though as a caution, I'm not fully sold, and I'm
| curious about cases in which information, knowledge,
| storage/retrieval, transmission, or processing might be
| either defensive or equalisers.
|
| Various forms of camouflage come to mind. Though the
| thought occurs that those can _also_ be used by the more-
| and less-empowered, perhaps asymmetrically.
| trhway wrote:
| > to deploy fighter jets to hijack a plane like this in
| violation of every international norm
|
| it is pretty standard practice in case of a bomb threat
| around the world as no one knows where the bomber(s) would
| force the plane to fly to :
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/16s-scrambled-escort-jets-bomb-
| thr...
|
| "An apparent bomb threat against two passenger flights that
| was tweeted today resulted in two F-16 fighter jets being
| scrambled to escort the two airliners.
|
| The two flights were both enroute to Hartsfeld-Jackson
| International Airport in Atlanta, where they landed safely
| NORAD said."
| [deleted]
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| > If a government cares enough to deploy fighter jets _[...]_
| it has the resources to know where you are at all times
|
| these are very different capabilities. the former is limited
| to state actors the latter can be found out by any Amadeus
| employee without any security clearance. the only way to
| avoid this is not to fly or use a passport that isn't in your
| name.
|
| if one were to speculate it is likely not even Belarus that
| made this happen.
| dang wrote:
| Please omit snarky swipes like "Oh please" from your HN
| comments--they just make the thread worse, and your comment
| would be quite fine without that.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| halukakin wrote:
| Very sad day for democracy.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Belta, the state-owned news agency in Belarus, said Mr
| Lukashenko had personally given the order for the plane to land
| at Minsk following the bomb alert, and that a MiG-29 fighter jet
| had been despatched to accompany the Ryanair plane.
|
| Interesting framing
| andreasley wrote:
| Similar incident: On October 21, 2016, Belavia flight B2-840 from
| Kyiv to Minsk (of all places) was told to immediately return to
| the departure airport, or fighter jets would be scrambled [1].
| They were only 50km from their destination country's airspace.
| After the plane landed in Kyiv, Ukrainian law enforcement
| agencies escorted a passenger off the plane.
|
| Not quite the same, of course (no third-party country involved
| and passenger in question was released shortly thereafter), but
| forcing commercial airliners to land seems to be somewhat more
| common than I thought.
|
| [1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/378383.html
| 0ld wrote:
| > Kyiv to Minsk
|
| > They were only 50km from their destination country's airspace
|
| Just in case, Kyiv is like 75km from Belarusian border
| jpxw wrote:
| Let's say you were a foreign actor who wanted to disrupt Belarus.
| Calling in a bomb threat of this kind would be a pretty smart way
| to do it.
|
| Of course, it could be much more straightforward than that (it
| could just be that Belarus did this for their own reasons). But
| it's interesting to think about.
| DangerousPie wrote:
| That is very clearly not what happened.
| zokier wrote:
| Would be interesting to hear the communication between Minsk and
| the airplane here. For example did the captain make the decision
| to land solely based on the (false) bomb threat, or was there
| something more going on. Like were they informed that fighter(s)
| were dispatched?
|
| I mean it is obviously very bad to make false bomb threats, but
| its still very different than forcing by threatening to shoot the
| plane down.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| It might be. But political actors are good at leaving plausible
| deniability regarding their true motives: "We've dispatched a
| fighter jet to help you find your way to the landing strip."
| MR4D wrote:
| I wonder if this might be considered an act of war [0].
|
| [0] - https://www.britannica.com/topic/law-of-war/Legally-
| defining...
| stevespang wrote:
| Belarus dispatches MiG-29 fighter jet to corral RyanAir flight
| bound for Lithuania - - - - forcibly diverted to Minsk . . .
| tomp wrote:
| I wonder how they even knew who was no board... Are airlines
| forced to share the passenger list with every country they fly
| over? That's news to me, and seems like an unacceptable
| intrusion of privacy...
| pavlov wrote:
| The journalist was being followed by Belarussian KGB agents
| in Athens, and they boarded the flight with him. They didn't
| need passenger information from the airline.
|
| (They kept the name KGB in Belarus.)
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Name and methods.
| [deleted]
| iso1210 wrote:
| The followup should be civilian aircraft avoid flying in
| Belarussian airspace
| bombcar wrote:
| Note to self: when wanted by a country don't overfly said
| country or it's allies.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Obviously. I've also heard that, when you have been rejected
| for a US visa, you cannot fly from Canada to Latin America,
| because you cannot fly over the US.
|
| Was the plane over Belarus, though?
| tyingq wrote:
| _" Was the plane over Belarus, though?"_
|
| Yes:
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2
| ryanlol wrote:
| This is not correct. But if you are facing federal charges
| you probably do not want to do that.
| bombcar wrote:
| If it was sending Migs into neighboring airspace that'd be
| even more of an international incident.
|
| To be precise that's if you're rejected for a visa - just
| to transit you don't need one so it's best not to apply.
| mLuby wrote:
| Would the fighter have shot down the airliner if it hadn't
| complied? Seems like enforcement options are quite limited for
| such fast-moving, fragile vehicles.
| [deleted]
| Spooky23 wrote:
| As the pilot of the airliner full of passengers, would you
| choose to find out?
| markvdb wrote:
| The pilot must have had a range of options. Some of them
| might have risked the shooting of the plane. Others might
| have stalled, embarassed and/or documented this attack by
| Belarusian forces.
|
| I had a formative experience regarding the game of chicken
| years ago. It might look very much off topic at first
| sight, but please read on and decide for yourself.
|
| When I was in secondary school, bored teenagers repeatedly
| threatened local school bombings, causing the repeated
| evacuation of several schools. Never the one I went to
| school at. I later learned why from my father, a teacher at
| the school. The school did receive bomb threats just like
| the others. The school head did warn the police. After a
| short discussion with them, he firmly and politely informed
| them that our school would not be evacuated, and that was
| that. He was - and is, at 87- a quiet and soft spoken man,
| a well respected member of society, but definitely not
| afraid of a game of chicken.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| KAL007 proves it's not a good option to play chicken with
| military jets.
| goldenkey wrote:
| Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (also known as KAL007 and
| KE007)[note 2] was a scheduled Korean Air Lines flight from
| New York City to Seoul via Anchorage, Alaska. On September
| 1, 1983, the South Korean airliner servicing the flight was
| shot down by a Soviet Su-15 interceptor. The Boeing 747
| airliner was en route from Anchorage to Seoul, but due to a
| navigational mistake made by the KAL crew the airliner
| deviated from its original planned route and flew through
| Soviet prohibited airspace about the time of a U.S. aerial
| reconnaissance mission. The Soviet Air Forces treated the
| unidentified aircraft as an intruding U.S. spy plane, and
| destroyed it with air-to-air missiles, after firing warning
| shots which were likely not seen by the KAL pilots.[2] The
| Korean airliner eventually crashed in the sea near Moneron
| Island west of Sakhalin in the Sea of Japan. All 269
| passengers and crew aboard were killed, including Larry
| McDonald, a United States Representative from Georgia. The
| Soviets found the wreckage under the sea on September 15,
| and found the flight recorders in October, but this
| information was kept secret until 1993.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
| arodyginc wrote:
| Not likely, as they needed the guy for using in the trial to
| learn more about other people involved in the last year
| protests
| fy20 wrote:
| There are claims that KGB operatives onboard forced the plane to
| divert - that's a completely different situation from ATC calling
| the flight to land:
|
| https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1396446650718117890
| rayrey wrote:
| Plane is back in the air with 6 less people, the journalist and
| his girlfriend, and 4 others who may have the KGB agents
| orchestrating the "bomb threat"
| odiroot wrote:
| Maybe EU should consider putting these stooges on some no-fly
| list.
| kzrdude wrote:
| How about throw out Belarus of the international aviation
| treaties? If they misuse air traffic control to misdirect
| planes, maybe throw them out of the system.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| They probably used fake documents if they're from KGB.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| FYI technically it wasn't a forced landing by fighter jets.
| "Someone" reported there's a bomb on the plane while they were in
| the Belarus airspace, hence they did an emergency landing in
| Minsk.
|
| So while we know who "someone" is and that it's all planned in
| advance (the journalist reported that he was followed minutes
| before take-off), technically speaking the safety protocols were
| followed, and when landed they arrested a wanted man once he was
| on their soil.
|
| This reminds me of force landing Bolivian president's plane in
| the EU flying from Moscow when they thought Edward Snowden was on
| the plane.
| amelius wrote:
| A loophole in international law then. I hope this gets fixed
| before we see more exploits.
| cortesoft wrote:
| International law is not a real thing that has loopholes...
| it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually
| followed.
| libria wrote:
| Sounds more like an International Wishlist. Wherever the
| venn diagram of What a Country Does and What the World
| Wants intersects, they pat themselves on the back.
| Everything else, they shrug. I wonder what's the point.
| dTal wrote:
| That is exactly point; so that at least everyone agrees
| beforehand when praise/condemnation is appropriate. It
| doesn't enforce itself, but it does at least provide a
| notional focus point. Countries do attempt to reward and
| punish each other in various ways, and "international
| law" gives some direction to it.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| >International law is not a real thing that has
| loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles
| that are usually followed
|
| Nation states exist in a state of nature, and unfortunately
| might usually makes right. Superpowers can, and often do,
| simply decide that aspects of international law just don't
| apply to them. Of course, that doesn't stop them holding
| weaker powers to those standards.
| elliekelly wrote:
| What would happen if a pilot refused? My understanding is
| pilots have near total authority when operating an aircraft
| so if a pilot knew the "threat" stated was fabricated could
| they, in theory, just keep flying? Or even landed at a
| different, closer airport than the one specified?
|
| To be clear, I don't think pilots should be in a position to
| judge the truthfulness of ATF or the government they're
| flying over and I don't think pilot judgment is the
| "solution" to this loophole that has now been abused twice
| (that we know). I'm just curious about the process and what
| would happen if a pilot decided to call the bluff. Would
| Belarus (or whichever country) scramble fighter jets to force
| a landing? Would the pilot get in trouble? Is the answer
| different for a private flight vs commercial flight vs
| diplomatic flight?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I think that airplane will be considered captured by
| terrorists. If there's a danger of it being used as a
| weapon of mass destruction, it'll be blowed up to prevent
| more deaths. I don't think that it would be considered
| reasonable to blow up aircraft if it didn't present a
| danger to big cities.
|
| So IMO pilot could ignore their requirements and I think
| that nothing would happen outside of angry transmissions.
| Especially if the plane was near border. But I don't think
| that it would be reasonable, especially in an airplane full
| of innocent people.
| JshWright wrote:
| > to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we
| know)
|
| Twice?
| T-A wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| That MIG-29 on their tail will help them obey.
| rdslw wrote:
| Please, do not repeat false version of the story, promoted by
| Lukashenko.
|
| Plane crew change squawk code to intercepted (7700) not 7500
| which would indicate terrorist act.
|
| What happened is clear even before crew and passengers start
| giving press interviews in Vilnius.
|
| And please do not compare it to Bolivian case, then crew
| decided (to land) and was not put under duress by fighter
| plane.
| bananabiscuit wrote:
| The US has more resources at its disposal to finesse a forced
| landing. Less powerful countries have to resort to more
| barbaric means to achieve the same exact result.
| T-A wrote:
| As far as I know 7700 is a generic emergency code:
|
| https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/squawking-7700-in-
| flight-...
| mrandish wrote:
| > "Someone" reported there's a bomb on the plane while they
| were in the Belarus airspace
|
| The article doesn't say that the bomb threat claim came from
| anyone on the plane. Rather, it implies the pilots were
| informed of the alleged threat by Belarus air traffic control
| as the pretext for demanding that the plane divert.
|
| Based on the current facts being reported, it seems pretty
| clear what is going on here.
| Lammy wrote:
| You can tell some shit's about to go down when somebody sets
| you up the bomb and then you get signal.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| In that sentence, "on the plane" refers to the bomb, not to
| the "someone"
| anotheryou wrote:
| But minsk wasn't the nearest airport and there are reports of a
| fighter jet scrambling about.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| Here are some links of the Bolivian presidents plane being
| grounded:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-23166146
| tbenst wrote:
| This article and others report that the plane was instructed to
| land in Minsk, even though Vilnius was closer. That doesn't
| sound like following safety protocols to me
| croutonwagon wrote:
| There could be less nefarious reasons for that...such has
| what ATC was in contact at the time, headwind/tailwind can
| make a difference in speed/time even if the distance as the
| crow flies is shorter, or if there was more landing windows
| in Minsk.
|
| It should be considered and questioned, but it may not be
| nefarious.
| scottLobster wrote:
| You realize plausible deniability is part of tradecraft
| right? When conducted with any intelligence there will
| always appear to be a chance nefarious actions "might not
| have been nefarious". Your odds of a correct judgment are
| better if you take into account the motives of the parties
| involved and how directly the inputs/outputs of the system
| align with said motives. Or do you think it's just a happy
| coincidence when a politician votes no on a bill the day
| after a lobbyist opposed to the bill makes a donation? Or
| one of President Xi's political opponents just goes on an
| extended and very silent vacation? Or a used car salesman
| being super friendly to you is just because he's a really
| friendly guy?
| [deleted]
| croutonwagon wrote:
| Of course I do. I never said the bomb threat wasn't
| planned as a false flag, or that the timing wasnt done in
| a specific manner to ensure the flight was redirected to
| Minsk.
|
| Only that I have doubts that the pilots did NOT follow
| the proper protocols or were somehow involved in a
| conspiracy here. Commercial aviation is one of the few
| jobs where theres little tolerance for deviation of
| established protocols and checklists, especially in
| declared emergencies. And a lot of the routing decisions
| arent necessarily made by them.
|
| I understand some may find that offensive.. But it
| doesn't change my view on the matter. Nonetheless, i dont
| really see what is so controversial about stating it. It
| doesn't really excuse anything here....
| JshWright wrote:
| I think you're overlooking the fact that the pilots were
| not the ones who chose to land at Minsk. The fighter jets
| "escorting" them make that decision for them.
| [deleted]
| JshWright wrote:
| "Landing windows"?
|
| Why are you straining so hard to give this criminal act
| plausible deniability?
|
| You can easily look up the track of the aircraft. There is
| no "tailwind" that would have made Minsk the shorter
| flight.
| croutonwagon wrote:
| Im just not outraged...Nor do I have any illusions to
| Europe, much less eastern europe being all that "free".
| And finally the plausible deniability was made by the
| bomb threat, i dont have to manufacture that or convince
| anyone of its veracity (and I have no illusions about how
| bogus it was or wasnt).
|
| Im not a pilot, much less a pilot in that part of the
| world. But I do know that planes are generally only
| talking to 1 ATC at a time and it takes time to get in
| touch with another. And that pilots have very specific
| checklists and procedures when needing to call emergency
| landings. Listen to the Sully recordings when he ditched
| in an emergency. NJ was closer but he was still in
| contact and it would have taken too long.
|
| So if they get called for an emergency and are forced to
| make a landing, there are protocols in place to swiftly
| determine the when, where etc of setting down.
|
| Unless you are going to make the accusation that the
| pilots are political agents/operatives...
| jorvi wrote:
| > Nor do I have any illusions to Europe, much less
| eastern europe being all that "free
|
| Europe consistenly gets the highest ranking in things
| that test for different aspects of freedom (democracy,
| press, police violence, etc.)
|
| To be clear: it's not that Europe can't do better, but if
| you care about 'freedom' it's a better place to be than
| pretty much any other region on the planet.
| JshWright wrote:
| > Listen to the Sully recordings when he ditched in an
| emergency. NJ was closer but he was still in contact and
| it would have taken too long.
|
| He was _talking_ to NY TRACON. That doesn't mean he was
| somehow required to land in NY, not NJ. His first request
| to ATC was whether he could land at Teterboro (in NJ).
| They got on the phone and got permission for him, in
| order to avoid having to switch frequencies.
|
| > So if they get called for an emergency and are forced
| to make a landing, there are protocols in place to
| swiftly determine the when, where etc of setting down.
|
| Indeed there are, and literally none of them have to do
| with which ATC center the pilot happens to be
| communicating with at that point.
|
| > Unless you are going to make the accusation that the
| pilots are political agents/operatives...
|
| The pilots were looking at a MiG-29 out their window.
| They did not have a choice in the matter.
| ruined wrote:
| you don't need to exercise reserved skepticism here. there
| was no bomb and we know what happened when the plane
| landed. you're playing devil's advocate when they've
| already won
| tclancy wrote:
| I'm stealing that line. It feels like the Internet has
| inspired a subset of people to play for that team and
| it's so confusing as to why. I am trying to always
| "assume good intentions" as a rule now; I think it's just
| deep denial about the world we live in and how free we
| really are.
| wiml wrote:
| It's a form of attempting to disconfirm your beliefs. If
| it's easy to put together an argument against yourself
| that you can't rebut, then it's a sign you need to think
| more. And you can't do that well unless you're in the
| _habit_ of testing the weaknesses of every appealing new
| belief.
| grogenaut wrote:
| Was on a flight from Frankfurt to SEA about 2 years back,
| someone thought they were having a heart attack. Plane was
| about even between SEA and YVR, we took the most direct
| route to the runway and terminal I've ever taken coming
| into SEA over 200 flights. Especially since they kicked a
| plane coming in before us to the international terminal.
|
| Other interesting tidbit, the person claimed to be fine
| about 30 minutes later after talking to 2 doctors. But the
| ground crew said they required people to go to the hospital
| now for a full eval.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> the ground crew said they required people to go to the
| hospital now for a full eval._
|
| I see, so if you want an expedited landing you need to
| convince one of the _other_ passengers on the plane to
| fake a heart attack.
| deepserket wrote:
| if you check the flight path the plane took a really long
| path to minsk, getting as far away as possible from the
| border
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2
| robbick wrote:
| Indeed - I don't think the President is normally personally
| involved in safety protocols...
| ptx wrote:
| From the article: "Belta, the state-owned news agency in
| Belarus, said Mr Lukashenko had personally given the order for
| the plane to land in Minsk following the bomb alert, and that a
| MiG-29 fighter jet had been despatched to accompany the Ryanair
| plane."
| slim wrote:
| An emergency landing does not need a fighter jet. The fighter
| jet was there to scare the pilot
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The fighter jet was there to intercept. All commercial pilots
| are trained to follow standard procedures when intercepted.
| Which comes down to: 1. Let ATC know, 2. Establish radio
| communication or use standard signals if unable, 3. Follow
| directions by the intercepting plane instead of ATC.
|
| The radio words to use are standardised so they even work in
| case one side doesn't speak English. The signals are also
| very simple (rock wings, certain turns, gear up/down).
|
| No need to think about being shot down or not, no need to
| scare, any commercial flight being intercepted would follow
| directions.
| nemetroid wrote:
| This does not refute the parent commenter's point.
| varispeed wrote:
| That depends - they wouldn't want a plane with a bomb to
| explode over a city for example, so the jets could be used to
| "neutralise" the threat. Obviously in this case the bomb was
| fake and so the threat...
| ilyaeck wrote:
| P-lease! the case is crystal clear: the MIG was used to
| threaten the plane into landing!
| iso1210 wrote:
| The MIG was no doubt there to ensure the plane obeyed air
| traffic control
|
| It's not unheard of for military jets to escort civilian
| planes to an airport, for example
|
| https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-flight-
| escort...
|
| (Of course the situation of how the bomb threat came to
| be is different in this case, and IMO airlines now need
| to avoid Belarus overflights)
| varispeed wrote:
| Have you read this? https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto
| ry/2019/09/05/911-oral-...
|
| https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396519000830582
| 784
|
| Belarusian Air Force fighter-interceptor manoeuvred to
| signal to the pilots of a Ryanair airliner:follow me".
| The captain of the civilian aircraft was obliged to obey.
| The captain may have disobeyed the dispatcher's command,
| but the threat from a military aircraft was obligatory.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Huh, surely the Belarusian government wouldn't dare shoot it
| down? But I guess if I were the Ryanair captain responsible
| for all souls onboard, landing it is the safest choice.
| varjag wrote:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/09/14/
| a...
| csomar wrote:
| > Huh, surely the Belarusian government wouldn't dare shoot
| it down?
|
| No sane or insane pilot is going to risk it, however.
| Unless the pilot was certain that his and all of passengers
| fate were in danger, they are going to follow that fighter
| jet.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I think that just changed hours ago. Flying over
| Russian/Belarus is now considered harmful.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Iran shot a commercial passenger plane down last year, so
| it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _Iran shot a commercial passenger plane down last year,
| so it isn 't exactly outside the realm of possibility._
|
| Don't forget
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
| elliekelly wrote:
| Not intentionally.
| cortesoft wrote:
| A court in Canada ruled that it was intentional
| https://nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-shot-down-plane-
| ful...
| elliekelly wrote:
| It was a default judgment.
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| Would that need to be either Iranian or some
| international court? Why would a Canadian court be
| responsible for Iranian air zone?
| cortesoft wrote:
| What international court?
| tremon wrote:
| No need to go looking for examples from halfway across
| the world, Russia was complicit in the downing of MH-17
| over Ukraine:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-17#Cause_of_the_crash
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yes, intentionally:
|
| https://nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-shot-down-plane-
| ful...
| newacct583 wrote:
| I'm curious what constitutes a "technical" forced landing by
| fighter jets. I mean, you can't "technically" force a landing
| at all.
|
| Clearly what happened here is that the fake bomb threat was an
| excuse, and the purpose of the interceptor there was to
| demonstrate to the crew of the airplane that the use of force
| was a possibility. This plane was "forced down" by any
| reasonable use of the term.
|
| > This reminds me of force landing Bolivian president's plane
| in the EU flying from Moscow when they thought Edward Snowden
| was on the plane.
|
| Had to correct this elsewhere: there was no forced landing
| there at all. They were denied airspace privileges to cross
| most of western europe, which isn't the same thing at all. They
| landed in a friendly-ish nation, and were never boarded by
| anyone hostile or otherwise intercepted by law enforcement.
|
| What happened in the Snowden case was _DIPLOMACY_ ( "you may
| not travel here if you carry this man"), not force.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Fighter jets can intercept a plane, and tell it to land via
| radio. It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an
| order while inside a country's airspace.
| newacct583 wrote:
| Indeed, this plane was indeed intercepted and directed to
| land via radio. I think you're missing my point. Clearly it
| was forced down, technicalities notwithstanding.
| [deleted]
| loceng wrote:
| Is it not highly illegal internationally to claim a false
| bomb threat as well? Any repercussions or do countries
| not keep track of bad actions like this?
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I guess there is no international penal code. There are
| treaties but for many of them, there is no enforcement-no
| worldwide police to knock on your door.
|
| So repercussions tend to range from nothing, through
| wagging fingers, slaps on the wrist, to sanctions, UN
| resolutions, UN-sanctioned wars, or if you really piss
| someone off, non-sanctioned wars.
|
| I don't think Belarus will be invaded, and I guess Russia
| would veto any particularly nasty move in the UN, so
| really this leaves stern words and some unilateral
| sanctions against the Lukshenko regime. Doesn't seem like
| overwhelming penalty (though well-targeted and enforced
| sanctions can bite quite badly).
| pc86 wrote:
| I think in this context they basically mean that there
| are no countries in which a fake bomb threat against an
| airliner _isn 't_ illegal, so whoever did this, in
| whatever country they happened to be, committed a serious
| crime.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| Committed a serious crime? Sure. Will there be actual
| consequences for that individual? Unlikely.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| So someone from the Belarus intelligence service made a
| call to Ryanair and made a bomb threat. What can Ireland
| or any other jurisdiction do about it? Pretty much
| nothing, especially if the call originated in Belarus.
| cortesoft wrote:
| There is no such thing as "highly illegal" international
| law... international law is just a set of conventions,
| and are enforced by each nation choosing what to do about
| the 'violation'. There aren't a set of prescribed
| penalties, and if there were, there is no one to enforce
| them.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an
| order while inside a country 's airspace._
|
| The pilots could report that they are having technical
| difficulties and are unable to override the current route
| programmed into the autopilot. They are also have issues
| disengaging the autopilot. So they are "forced" to continue
| their flight on their pre-filed flight plan.
|
| Any direction from ATC would be replied with "Unable":
|
| * https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-
| you-s...
|
| * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-
| has-th...
|
| * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-
| can-...
|
| * https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-
| clear...
|
| Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can
| do about it.
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| > What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may
| not travel here if you carry this man"), not force.
|
| And MiG-29 sprinkled same kind of diplomacy here - they
| weren't shot down, they just were diplomatically notified
| that in their best interest is to land down. See, no force,
| pure diplomacy.
| newacct583 wrote:
| Again, there was no force with the Morales plane. No one
| can enter another nation's airspace without permission.
| They were simply denied permission. It's the difference
| between being denied boarding for an international flight
| because you forgot your passport and being arrested once
| you land. One is "force", one is not.
|
| Denying Morale's plane permission was an act of diplomacy,
| albeit a very uncommon one and one in pursuit of an unjust
| goal.
|
| Forcing down a foreign airplane on an international flight
| to arrest someone on it is an act of war. Sorry.
| [deleted]
| ernesth wrote:
| > when landed they arrested a wanted man once he was on their
| soil.
|
| Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the
| international zone when between flights, so, here, the
| passengers should not have entered Belarus. Do we know what
| happened in the airport?
| elliekelly wrote:
| I suspect this is why a "bomb" is a convenient cover story
| for the government. They can force _everyone_ off the plane
| rather than having to extract a single passenger.
| monocasa wrote:
| The international zone is a individual national concept to
| simplify their customs ingress at that country's discretion.
| All countries have the right to ignore it if they see fit,
| such as law enforcement actions.
| iso1210 wrote:
| If I land on a plane in America, shoot someone before I clear
| immigration, then depart, does that mean I can't be arrested?
| sigzero wrote:
| No, it does not.
| trhway wrote:
| >Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the
| international zone when between flights
|
| for example, when US agents capture people outside US and
| load them on a plane to bring in to US they actually formally
| arrest and charge them only when the plane enters US
| airspace.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| This seems a lot more aggressive than what happened with the
| Bolivian President. The man who had tasked himself with
| harboring Snowden made everyone think Snowden was on the plane
| and the US presumably influenced some allies to not allow him
| to be transited through their airspace. That doesn't seem
| totally unreasonable to me. That's not to say that I side with
| the US govt in general regarding Snowden.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > a lot more aggressive
|
| Yep, unsophisticated peasants tend to use more force than
| experienced urbanites. Dreadful, don't you know.
| [deleted]
| ResearchCode wrote:
| Not really. US using implicit financial coercion is no better
| than Belarus using their air-force. Clearly a larger display
| of corruption.
| mrandish wrote:
| > to not allow him to be transited through their airspace.
|
| This is exactly what Belarus just did. The US and it's allies
| are now strongly objecting that it's illegal and improper to
| do exactly what they've previously done.
|
| The idea of mutually agreeing to allow commercial
| transportation aircraft to transit your airspace is supposed
| to be that this is _not_ done. It is hugely hypocritical for
| the US to have used this same tactic, even if done through
| proxies.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Not allowing transit into and through your airspace is not
| exactly the same thing as allowing transit into your
| airspace then forcing them down in your country.
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| It's not exactly the same but it's almost the same -
| multiple countries synchronously closing their airspace
| so plane can't just go around single one thus basically
| forcing plane down as it could run out of fuel is quite
| similar to faking bomb alert in order to force plane
| down. Only lame excuse is different.
| DangerousPie wrote:
| > This is exactly what Belarus just did.
|
| No it's not?!
| iso1210 wrote:
| Spain, France and Italy closed their airspace to the plane.
| It was a disgraceful incident, but not the same as this.
|
| Had Belarus closed their airspace, the ryanair flight would
| have had to fly around (or divert to Warsaw or Lviv)
| achikin wrote:
| The general question is - can you alter the other
| country's airplane path to pursue political goals? And
| the answer is yes.
| leosarev wrote:
| They are closed their airspace in coordinated effort to
| land the plane within reach of authorities searching for
| Snowden. It's same.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Wasn't the Bolivian plane the President's which meant it was
| entitled to additional diplomatic protections and couldn't be
| required to stop at all? Hence the various governments
| refusal to allow them into specific airspace so they'd run
| out of fuel and be forced to stop without being ordered to?
| It seems like the same goal and the same end result just that
| it required a little more finesse in their malicious
| compliance with international treaties.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Hence the various governments refusal to allow them into
| specific airspace so they'd run out of fuel and be forced
| to stop without being ordered to?_
|
| > _It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an
| order while inside a country 's airspace._
|
| The pilots could report that they are having technical
| difficulties and are unable to override the current route
| programmed into the autopilot. They are also have issues
| disengaging the autopilot. So they are "forced" to continue
| their flight on their pre-filed flight plan.
|
| Any direction from ATC would be replied with "Unable":
|
| * https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-
| you-s...
|
| * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-
| has-th...
|
| * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-
| can-...
|
| * https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-
| clear...
|
| Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can
| do about it.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Who are you quoting in the second paragraph? Because it
| looks like you're quoting me and I don't believe I said
| that...
| lotusmars wrote:
| As for Bolivia plane example:
|
| Go fuck yourself yourself with your whataboutism.
|
| Speaking it as a Russian with Belarussian friends and relatives
| living under Putin and Lukashenko's oppressive regimes.
| belatw wrote:
| Lukashenko is destined to meet the same fate as Nicolae
| Ceausescu.
|
| This was an attack on Lithuania, Greece and Ireland.
|
| How many more times will western governments bend over as Putin
| and other tin pot soviet dicktators shoot down or hijack flights?
| type0 wrote:
| Highly unlikely, the worst that he might get is some type of
| Pinochet treatment
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Post-dictator...
| hellow0rldz wrote:
| Meh, aren't cross-Atlantic flights potentially re-routed through
| US soil?
|
| Isn't it common that flights to Canada need to make an emergency
| landing which conveniently allows US customs to filter
| passengers?
|
| Diverting planes seems something that states just do.
|
| This time it's a smaller state that uses big boy tools.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> flights to Canada need to make an emergency landing which
| conveniently allows US customs to filter passengers?_
|
| Link?
| brabel wrote:
| Lukashenko is showing he's willing to go to great lengths to
| silence opposition and free press completely in Belarus.
| Arresting opposition party leaders before elections for made-up
| accusations is par for the course in Belarus... but now he has
| been doing the same not only to his enemies, but to any
| newsagency that dares to as much as hint at criticizing his
| brutal regime, as he's just done with tut.by[1], the now former
| largest independent news portal in the country.
|
| The EU has shown no determination to put a brake on Lukashenko's
| abuses and has been completely passive so far on the matter.
|
| The USA, in my opinion, should show leadership and step in to
| make it clear that such affront against democracy on a neighbour
| of its closest allies will not be tolerated. Poland and Hungary
| (not to mention Turkey a bit further away) are already leaning
| dangerously close to the kinds of abuse of power only seen in
| dictatorships, and letting Belarus get away with this
| international provocation will just make it even more clear that
| the great powers don't care enough to defend democratic rights
| anywhere outside their own borders, and they are free to go ahead
| with their own crackdowns on freedom of expression and disregard
| of human rights.
|
| [1] https://emerging-europe.com/news/belarus-shuts-down-
| largest-...
| pydry wrote:
| >The USA, in my opinion, should show leadership and step in to
| make it clear that such affront against democracy
|
| The US is rarely interested in affronts against democracy
| unless there's a geopolitical advantage to be had by leveraging
| it.
|
| From a practical standpoint, US interventions almost always
| make things worse for the people who live there, and in a lot
| of cases less democratic.
| irrational wrote:
| Are there any cases when the USA has increased democracy in
| the world on a lasting basis? Even within the country we see
| the current Republicans trying to smother democracy by
| denying voting rights to citizens and inciting an
| insurrection.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Winning the Cold War made a lot of European countries
| democratic.
| 0x426577617265 wrote:
| WWII
| tomohawk wrote:
| That sure didn't take long.
| katbyte wrote:
| Is that comment inaccurate?
| newthreefifths wrote:
| The GOP just wants people to show ID when they vote. If
| it's so easy to get vaccinated that anyone can do it and we
| should expect people to show vaccine cards to travel or go
| about their regular lives, people like you need to stop
| acting like minorities aren't smart enough to figure out
| how to get an ID to provide in order to vote
|
| The Democrats want illegals to count in the census to boost
| their own voting power in places like California. They
| count for representation but can't vote. Remind you of any
| past compromises? Democrats always liked getting to vote on
| behalf of disenfranchised minorities in their state.
|
| You need to consume news from some organization that isn't
| a tabloid. These organizations are tabloids: MSNBC, CNN,
| The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vice, Vox, Slate,
| The Huffington Post
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| The GOP wants to check IDs because their voters are more
| likely to have ID. That's the only reason. It's not some
| noble effort to protect the sanctity of our elections.
| Illegal immigrants don't vote.
| faichai wrote:
| South Korea and Taiwan perhaps?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| South Korea became democratic after a revolution against
| the US-installed government. But even then, it's an
| incredibly weak democracy - every single South Korean
| prime minister resigned in disgrace, without any
| exception, after some kind of illegal action or
| corruption (!!!).
| simfree wrote:
| Also Japan
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Japan at the national level is barely democratic, the LDP
| has won all but one time at the national level in
| 50+years, and the term in which they weren't power they
| installed party-loyal functionaries to almost ignore the
| democratically elected government. A few times they did
| have premiers from other parties for a brief amount of
| time, but they never completed a term because they went
| against the LDP.
|
| In Japan, a party with over 10% of the vote is surveilled
| as a criminal organization and it's leadership is thus
| being targeted 24/7 and prosecuted for anything remotely
| possible such as putting flyers in mailboxes, in order to
| disrupt the political process.
|
| If it's a democracy, it's one of the weakest ones.
| emn13 wrote:
| This is clearly the wrong question to ask if you want to
| determine whether interventions were merited. You need to
| ask: is it likely the situation would have been worse... or
| better had whatever specific intervention not taken place,
| and you need to include positive and negative consequences
| to at the very least the wider region, if not the entire
| globe.
|
| After all, you don't blame a nurse for all their dying
| patients if their specialty is palliative care; the
| counterfactual matters.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > The US is rarely interested in affronts against democracy
|
| A Mig fighter jet was dispatched to shepherd the airliner.
| This represents a threat to anyone on a flight through or
| maybe even near Belarus's airspace.
| [deleted]
| lmilcin wrote:
| It is clear a fighter could not do anything about any bomb
| on an aircraft.
| tremon wrote:
| It was there to force the pilot. Last I checked, a pilot
| has final authority on a plane's heading and destination,
| not air traffic control.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Kuwait 1990 Haiti 1994 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995 Kosovo
| 1999 Colombia 2000+ Afghanistan 2001 Libya 2011 Iraq 2014
|
| There have been a lot of catastrophic $&@$ ups and terrible
| ideas, but it's selective history to claim there have been no
| positive outcomes for the people who live there.
| pydry wrote:
| Iraq? A _million_ people died as a result of the Iraqi
| intervention.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| 2014 was preventing the Iraqi government collapse to ISIL
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Iraq_(2013%E2%80%9
| 320...
|
| IMHO, it seems like most Iraqis are better off living
| under a government than IS, but your opinion may differ.
| whydoibother wrote:
| ISIL existed/exists directly due to America's waging of
| war on Iraq. It's disingenuous to list that there.
| emn13 wrote:
| Just because a previous intervention was ill advised does
| not mean a later one was; quite the opposite; you could
| even consider it taking responsibility for damage caused.
|
| It's clearly not disingenuous to include the 2014
| intervention in the list of the more reasonable ones.
|
| I mean, if you present it as somehow excusing the earlier
| mistake; that'd be a different issue.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| You've got this exactly backwards. The invasion of Iraq
| was a contingent factor in the rise of ISIL. In
| particular Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi regular
| army was incredibly stupid. The bulk of the regular army,
| not the republican guard, acted more as a nation wide
| police force than a military proper. Disbanding them
| meant there were now 100,000's of thousands of young men
| with basic military training with no more income to
| provide to their family. That became the recruiting pool
| for both the insurgency and ISIL.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Yes. And in 2014, what would you have proposed to do
| about decisions made in 2003?
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I see no reason to limit discussion of the consequence of
| what we did in Iraq to 2014, but even then, it's not
| nearly as positive as what you're claiming. Iraq post
| 2014 is now effectively a client state of Iran, something
| that makes life much more dangerous for broad swaths of
| ordinary Iraqi citizens, as well as the region in
| general.
|
| I don't think it's reasonable to argue your intervention
| in my house fire was successful because you used your
| bulldozer to clean up the rubble, if you were the
| arsonist that set fire to it in the first place.
|
| If you'd like a particularly poignant "fly on the wall"
| style look into how ordinary Iraqi people saw the
| invasion in 2003, and their predictions for the future,
| check out Iraq in Fragments. Many of their predictions
| have come true in the years since.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiu8cXhjpX4
| sudosysgen wrote:
| ISIS would never have been able to gain even a fraction
| of a foothold in the pre-Iraq war government, for all its
| ills.
| hervature wrote:
| Small nitpick, the country is Colombia, the university is
| Columbia.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Thanks! Not enough coffee. Corrected!
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Putin's ambitions seem like a geopolitical risk. Maybe on
| both sides; it seems Autocrats right now like a good 'buffer'
| - e.g. North Korea. Plus a new forming 'axis' vs 'democracy'
| power struggle
|
| Hard to argue with the second when looking at the past 2
| decades, but looking broader in the past century I think
| there are many more arguments the other way. Most of Europe
| for one.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > The US is rarely interested in affronts against democracy
| unless there's a geopolitical advantage to be had by
| leveraging it.
|
| Who are the countries who are willing to intercede militarily
| purely to liberate a country?
|
| > From a practical standpoint, US interventions almost always
| make things worse for the people who live there, and in a lot
| of cases less democratic.
|
| I think this is a fair criticism--intercession is hard--but
| the question isn't whether things are better or worse than
| they were, but rather whether they were better or worse than
| they would have been under Soviet influence. And you can
| analyze this as "whether or not a specific country is better
| or worse" as well as "whether or not the world is better or
| worse for the diminished soviet influence that would have
| been afforded by that country falling under Soviet
| influence".
| katbyte wrote:
| pretty sure the issues that belarus has is more to do with
| its dictator lukashenko then "soviet influence":
| https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-
| bastards-29236...
| lmilcin wrote:
| Most likely, yes. But consider none of this would be
| happening without Russian backing.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Soviet influence it is. Lukasenko was a party boss in
| USSR
|
| Putin was KGB mafia boy.
|
| Kravcuk, and Kucma were party bosses of state
| enterprises.
|
| Aliyevs were KGB men
|
| Shevardnaze was USSR's foreign minister
|
| The whole of Central Asia is basically ruled by exactly
| the same Moscow's satraps since late eighties, with
| exception of wild tempered Kyrgyzstan.
|
| Mongolia, "the 16th republic," also had communist
| comeback, only ended by an extreme, Norko style economic
| collapse.
|
| The only country of ex-USSR where CPSU did not recapture
| the power outside of Baltics was Armenia, but only thanks
| to power going to their nazis. A medicine worse than the
| poison.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > The only country of ex-USSR where CPSU did not
| recapture the power outside of Baltics was Armenia
|
| And Georgia
| emkoemko wrote:
| in Afghanistan for how long? now Taliban control more
| territory then they did before US came in...
|
| Libya? way way worse, i mean its a place you can buy slaves
| in open markets now after US intervention...
|
| list is huge, some places they would take out democracy to
| put in puppet dictatorships all in the interest of the US,
| they will work with Saudi Arabia and in last 5 years starve
| 80,000 kids to death in Yemen under 5 years.
|
| i can only list a few countries that US intervention ended
| actually helping both the US and the country.
|
| so yes USA will claim to come in to give "democracy" or
| what ever humanitarian excuse but its never for those
| reasons, its always for the interest of US and US
| corporations, i mean didn't the US take a country just
| because corporations wanted it for growing Bananas? and
| still to this day they are messing with them ?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| It's like you didn't even read my post...
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The US only intervenes if a rich American has a profit motive
| that benefits them. Standing up for the Bosnians was the last
| rare instance where this wasn't the case. Selling bombs to
| both sides to maintain perpetual conflict is the usual
| favorite play.
| dnautics wrote:
| The US intervenes in plenty of places where there is no
| profit motive outside of the standard military industrial
| complex. I think, for example, it's hard to argue that
| there was a profit motive in somalia, or bombing that
| pharmaceuticals factory in the sudan, going back further
| and getting out of africa, Grenada, e.g. Not that these
| interventions weren't stupid for other reasons.
| pydry wrote:
| Not sure about Sudan but Somalia is a key shipping
| chokepoint. There very much is a profit motive there.
| dnautics wrote:
| Geographically. Somaliland might be, but that's a de
| facto independent region only marginally connected to
| Mogadishu, where the intervention was.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| Then why did piracy spike _after_ the US intervention?
| krono wrote:
| "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose" -
| Captain Picard
| sthnblllII wrote:
| Thats not what happened. There was no piracy problem.
| Then the US toppled the government. Then there was a
| piracy problem. The US didnt intervene to stop a problem
| that didnt exist. I was responding to the claim that
| destabilizing the Somali government in 1993 was
| profitable to wealth Americans because shipping lanes are
| near Somalia.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_off_the_coast_of_S
| oma...
|
| >After the collapse of the Somali government and the
| dispersal of the Somali Navy, ... groups, using small
| boats, would sometimes hold vessels and crew for ransom.
| This grew into a lucrative trade, with large ransom
| payments. The pirates then began hijacking commercial
| vessels
| krono wrote:
| Thanks for the insight, I really wasn't aware of the
| extent of their actions.
|
| The quote I posted is a bit cryptic by itself. What I
| meant by it was that perhaps the US had plans that would
| lead to greater benefits for them in the region, but
| these plans backfired by inadvertently creating the
| Somali piracy problem.
|
| They did everything right with regards to whatever they
| were hoping to achieve, but they still failed and then
| pirates happened.
| pydry wrote:
| I didn't say it was a success.
|
| The US is no stranger to strategic military intervention
| that costs lives and money and achieves nothing very
| substantial - from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan.
| dnautics wrote:
| Speaking of which - what was the profit motive in
| Vietnam? There was definitely geopolitical motive, but I
| can't imagine there was a "rich American" person or
| corporation calling the shots for themselves in indochina
| type0 wrote:
| What are you talking about, the military industrial
| complex made an insane amounts of money from that war.
| dnautics wrote:
| > The US intervenes in plenty of places where there is no
| profit motive outside of the standard military industrial
| complex.
|
| It was the cold war. I'm pretty sure the MIC could have
| justified so much spending in other ways besides vietnam,
| but we are venturing into counterfactual territory.
| pacija wrote:
| Right, US stood up for Bosnians for the goodness of their
| hearts, not to weaken Serbs, historically Russian allies,
| and to signal Turkey and middle eastern oil holders "we
| support your foothold in Europe".
| outside1234 wrote:
| Probably, but it was also the right thing to do.
|
| And it was also clear nobody in Europe cared or was going
| to do anything, even if it was also in their craven
| interest.
|
| Probably didn't align with their August vacation schedule
| plans or something.
| [deleted]
| pydry wrote:
| They were a little more hesitant to engage in airstrikes
| because they knew that Serbia would step up the ethnic
| cleansing if they did.
|
| & they did.
|
| The US was more concerned with there being instability in
| Europe than any overriding moral concerns.
| pacija wrote:
| 300,000 of Serbs forced out of Croatia in period from
| 1991 to 1995. Where were US bombs to prevent that
| particular ethnic cleansing?
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| US bombs landed on Croatian Serbs on multiple occasions
| thus enabling ethnic cleansing. But no biggie, what's
| small ethnic cleansing between NATO friends?
| dnautics wrote:
| > and in a lot of cases less democratic
|
| Almost all. I can really think of two counterexamples, Japan
| and Korea (and it took a very long time ~30 years? for korea
| to figure itself out). Maybe Jugoslavia can be put into that
| bin too, though it's not clear if the US intervention hurt or
| helped.
| froh wrote:
| you can add Germany to the list, albeit France and UK also
| had a say there
| mdiesel wrote:
| Setting up the Weimar Republic after WW1 didn't go so
| well, then the aftermath of WW2 there were decades of
| east+west Germany. I don't see that as a positive example
| of a foreign power setting up a government.
| [deleted]
| enkid wrote:
| The USA side was much better than the USSR side...
| anoncake wrote:
| The Weimar Republic wasn't set up by the Entente and not
| going to war with the Soviet Union to liberate East
| Germany was, to put it mildly, a reasonable decision.
| scythe wrote:
| I have to preface this with a very emphatic _the ends
| absolutely do not justify the means_ , but, defying ill
| repute and near-unanimous pessimism, Iraq seems to have
| been able to slowly stitch its parliamentary system back
| together and respond to democratic pressures (protests,
| elections) without resorting to fraud and violence. It's
| too early to celebrate, but things look a lot better than
| they did ten years ago.
| TravelnSalesman wrote:
| > The USA, in my opinion, should show leadership and step in to
| make it clear that such affront against democracy on a
| neighbour of its closest allies
|
| The USA showed leadership when it contrived a situation where
| the president of Bolivia's plane was made to land in Austria,
| to search for someone who leaked to journalists that the US
| government was monitoring virtually all domestic phone calls,
| texts, Internet connections etc.
|
| Leadership in an affront against democracy, as you put it.
| hourislate wrote:
| Can you imagine the pressure he is under, knowing full well
| that Russia stands ready to take the entire country if the
| possibility of a Pro Europe/Pro Western Party was elected. You
| don't have to look back too far to see what lies on the
| horizon, Ukraine was a perfect example of that. Unfortunately
| Europe (France and Germany mainly)/West (USA) has shown that
| they are more interested in maintaining a business relationship
| with Russia than defended against their aggression. They won't
| even support none aggression treaties they were all a party to.
|
| Is Lukashenko a dictator, for sure, but he is in an impossible
| situation. The Russians are making sure of that and as long as
| Western Governments show an indifference to the sovereignty of
| countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, etc there is no way
| forward.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| He is in impossible situation not because of Russia, but
| because of corrupt and violent regime he created. Majority of
| population in Belarus is pro-Russian, so the alliance between
| countries would persist after the transition of power (see
| Armenia, Kyrgyzstan for recent examples of how this works).
| His personal risks are loss of all assets and the fact that
| the new government will likely demand his extradition from
| Russia for criminal investigation. Probably the only reason
| why Lukashenko is still there is that Russia will not revoke
| its support until there are signs that opposition wins.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| It is not normal to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign
| nations unless one of the affected nations requests help. And
| even then the other nations have a lot of additional
| considerations beyond doing anything but making a sternly
| worded speech. Most of the time when the USA inserts itself
| into other affairs people complain about the USA being a bully
| and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. The EU needs to
| craft a strong response to this by itself or lose a lot of
| credibility on the world stage.
|
| Edit: just to clarify, some of the USA's other considerations
| would be the risk of getting called out for being a hypocrite-
| it has done a few shady extraditions in the past.
| 0x426577617265 wrote:
| So true. Both Greece and Lithuania are EU members. Part of
| the EU mission is to provide freedom & security for the
| members. So here we are, do something.
| belatw wrote:
| Ireland is also involved in this. All three entities are
| members of the eu, Greece and Lithuania are in NATO and
| Ireland is a "partner" of NATO.
| croes wrote:
| The US is not the world police. Maybe should start with their
| ally Saudi Arabia first to dispel any doubts, it was not about
| democracy. Raif Badawi is still imprisoned.
| type0 wrote:
| Go watch "Team America, World Police", the depiction (though
| satirical) has some poignant truth to it.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Maybe the US is world american-style police? :D
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Anything involving the Saudis is in fact an adjustment of the
| world economic petro-dollar system.
|
| The US and Saudis both have a very large gun to each other's
| heads... so that's a pretty constrained situation.
|
| It will be curious to see what happens in the next 10+ years
| as oil-as-energy demand begins to wane.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| >The US and Saudis both have a very large gun to each
| other's heads
|
| Thats just not true. Saudi family rule over Arabia is
| predicated on US support. If all SA oil production stopped
| it would not topple the US government. If the US decided to
| back a political opposition like it did in Syria the Saudi
| regime would implode in days.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Saud family have a lot in the bank, so they could hire
| someone else if USA politics got rid of their lobbyists
| who control much of Congress. Are they so weak that they
| would simply collapse without USA support? I would think
| they could just hire e.g. some ex-Pakistani military to
| keep the populace cowed.
|
| Or do you mean to say that USA could easily replace the
| regime with a different, more-favored one? How did that
| work in Syria? We're withdrawing from Afghanistan now,
| and at this time Taliban control more territory than they
| held in 2001. USA military is a bit of a paper tiger,
| when it comes to achieving results via military action.
| bosswipe wrote:
| It's sad that USA has been seen as the international beacon for
| freedom and the defender of democracy for so many international
| struggles but USA has abdicated this role after it was abused
| by greed and the CIA so many times. Now isolationist voices
| have gained power domestically. We could have been the super
| heroes for freedom and democracy that the world needed. Being
| viewed that way was a big part of our super power's soft power
| and our loss of it is a big win for China and Russia.
| splithalf wrote:
| Soft power and American exceptionalism; like apple pie with
| ice cream, always somehow greater than the sum of the parts.
| The reality is that our soft power is moderated (mediated?)
| by the narratives exported by the couple of big media
| companies that dominate our airwaves (and thoughts.) These
| narratives have intentionally not, worked to undermine
| American soft power while promoting the soft power of
| international organizations like the WHO. Any discussion of
| soft power that omits the media is hopelessly incomplete. The
| soft power is being reallocated by our elites, because it was
| _their_ power to begin with.
| bosswipe wrote:
| We created the WHO and the UN out of an idealism and
| optimism that derived from an honest belief after WWII that
| we were the good guys that were going to use our power to
| spread freedom and democracy. That idealism is what gave us
| the power. That's why so many popular struggles around the
| world have used the statue of liberty as a symbol for the
| society they want to create.
| supergirl wrote:
| The USA did exactly this themselves. they forced landed
| Bolivia's presidential airplane in Austria thinking Snowden is
| on board. Also, the USA is hunting down the likes of Snowden
| and Assange. So Belarus is following the lead
| splithalf wrote:
| "great powers don't care enough to defend democratic rights
| anywhere outside their own borders"
|
| Could they not draw the same conclusion from our very pro trade
| friendly policies toward for example China?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I suspect the U.S. is already responsible for making this
| behaviour more common. Can certainly try to make up for it, but
| I think great damage has been done.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| You dont make up for being a brutal expansionist empire by
| being a "kinder gentler" expansionist empire. Until there is
| regime change in the US nothing it does will be good for
| anyone but its own ruling class.
| paiute wrote:
| They/we could start by removing the fisa courts.
| zpeti wrote:
| > Poland and Hungary (not to mention Turkey a bit further away)
| are already leaning dangerously close to the kinds of abuse of
| power only seen in dictatorships
|
| Please show me examples in Poland or Hungary of opposition
| voices being silenced or arrested.
|
| The worst that has happened is withdrawing government financing
| or grants to entities that aren't pro government. That's not
| exactly a dictatorship.
|
| In Hungary almost all the online press is anti government. No
| one gets arrested. Their are 5 opposition parties now uniting
| against government, no one is silenced.
|
| Yes the state TV is pro government. But this is not unique to
| Poland or Hungary. In fact I'd argue the pinnacle of state TV,
| the BBC is very much leaning to one side of the political isle
| right now too.
| thih9 wrote:
| > Please show me examples in Poland or Hungary of opposition
| voices being silenced or arrested.
|
| Some examples for Poland that I'm aware of:
|
| - August 2020 mass arrest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augu
| st_2020_LGBT_protests_in_P...
|
| - Poland's constitutional court not a "tribunal established
| by law", rules ECHR:
| https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/05/07/polands-
| constitutiona...
|
| Sure, the situation seems not as bad as in Belarus, but still
| it looks bad.
| e3k wrote:
| really?
|
| Nepszabadsag, the biggest printed newspaper was bought and
| closed by government/its allies.
|
| origo.hu and index.hu, the biggest Hungarian online portals
| was also bought, and converted to progovernment outlets.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Thing is the BBC article seems to depend largely on an article
| from a Belarus newspaper, which I doubt has undergone some
| mangling in translation. Can anyone knowing Russian post an
| accurate summary of it:
|
| https://www.belta.by/president/view/komandu-prinjat-v-minske...
| dan-robertson wrote:
| You can find various English-language summaries on Twitter from
| the (exiles) opposition, eg
| https://mobile.twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/139644665071...
| or
| https://mobile.twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/13964296663...
| slim wrote:
| This is very bold move. They want his network, that's why this
| young man is so valuable. I hope the international community will
| act quickly, that his contacts know what they are doing and are
| prepared for this situation. Because he's facing torture, and the
| fact his girlfriend was arrested with him will make things worse.
| I don't know what to do
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| The international community will do exactly NOTHING, as always.
| Hundreds of people have been tortured in Belarus by a crazy
| dictator, and nobody actually gives a shit. The only thing they
| can do is to say how "worrying this situation is". Leaders
| without the balls. Maniacs like Lukashenko and Putin will do
| whatever they want while the only reaction is talking.
| ptero wrote:
| What about forcing the plane of the Bolivian president to
| land in 2013; what that justified? Lukashenko is doing what
| "international community" did then -- trying to catch an
| inconvenient person that the state cannot legally reach
| otherwise.
|
| I am not claiming that such things should be left with no
| response. In fact, I suspect this might hasten Lukashenko's
| downfall (quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi), but he is just
| taking a page from the "western civilization" playbook. My
| 2c.
| lovecg wrote:
| > What about...
|
| I seem to remember there's a term for what you're doing in
| your post...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _international community will do exactly NOTHING, as
| always. Hundreds of people have been tortured in Belarus by a
| crazy dictator_
|
| There is a huge difference between diverting an international
| flight and terrorising one's own citizens. The latter is a
| humanitarian crisis. The former is a threat to me and my
| family. That's a material difference.
|
| At the very least, Belarusian air space and air access rights
| should be curtailed. It would also be reasonable to scramble
| NATO assets to protect those airways.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Ryan Air should stop all flights in and out of Belarus
| until this guy is released and go somewhere where he is
| free. Then some other companies could follow their lead.
| wasmitnetzen wrote:
| Ryanair does not fly to Belarus, even in non-Covid times.
| This flight was just passing Belarusian airspace on the
| way to Lithuania.
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| NATO to "protect" airways over Belarus? When pigs fly, I
| guess.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Russia would not permit NATO to control Belarusian air
| space. Despite some recent strained relations, Russia would
| see such a move against Belarus as a move against Russia.
| The western world's love of "no fly zones" only works with
| the weakest of opponents that have few friends. This isn't
| Iraq or Libya, this is Russia's front porch. This type of
| saber rattling is the type that starts act hot wars.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Russia would not permit NATO to control Belarusian air
| space_
|
| Nobody proposed NATI air dominance over Belarus. What I
| proposed is restricting international flights through
| Belarusian ATZ, denying Belarusian flights international
| overfly, escorting international am flights that get
| close to Belarus with armed platforms and denying
| neighbouring airspace to Belarusian armed platforms.
| sofixa wrote:
| What do you want them to do? Do you think people _anywhere_
| are willing to go to ( potentially nuclear ) war over
| Belarus? And even if there 's a war, ans the "good guys" win,
| how does that guarantee that things will be better than
| before, and won't devolve into chaos and civil war, like they
| did in Iraq or Lybia?
| achikin wrote:
| Well they did a lot for Japan and Germany after WW2.
| aus-lander wrote:
| "The international community will do exactly NOTHING"
|
| I very much hope you are right. I very much hope also, that
| this very same "international community", as you choose to
| call it, would stop supporting what might be very objectively
| called fomenting violence in Belorussia and Russia.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Is this a throwaway from an HN user sympathetic to
| dictators, or is this a member of Russia's contracted troll
| farms?
| aus-lander wrote:
| No, most of Russian people, as far as I know, think more
| or less like me.
|
| I understand this might bother you, but you see, the
| reality is one thing, and your state propaganda is
| another.
| aus-lander wrote:
| .. so unless you think that I must not be allowed to
| express my opinion, because the only Russians allowed to
| express their opinions here would be Navalnyi followers
| and the like, bear with me.
| finnh wrote:
| Many people give a shit, but it's not straightforward to
| replace a dictator with something better ... Witness every
| war since WWII
| baybal2 wrote:
| It is straightforward, and US did it in 1945.
|
| It is very straightforward. Very straightforward.
| PeterisP wrote:
| 1945 is probably a good counterexample. If Hitler had
| kept his regime and genocide locally and not invaded
| neighbours, there would be no WW2, everybody would let
| him do that.
|
| Just like in Cambodia, or Rwanda, or North Korea, or
| many, many other examples - as a rule, the world does
| _not_ intervene with violent regime change just because a
| regime is abusing their people. Like, nobody in power
| batted an eye when Saddam gassed Kurds in his territory,
| intervention happened only when he invaded Kuwait. I 'm
| not even sure if I have seen a single exception in
| 20th-21st century history; it feels like humanitarian
| aspects have been only used as a pretext or justification
| if there were other politic/economic reasons that
| mattered more than that.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| They seem to have lost their mojo in 2003.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Yeah basically those wars have shown that unless the locals
| want democracy and you are willing to suppress all
| rebellion with an iron fist (like USA in Japan) then as
| soon as you leave, if you even win, it will go back to the
| way it was before just under a new dictator. It just seems
| like some societies just don't care if they're run by a
| dictator. Sure some will rise up but it's usually no more
| than a few percent.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Good point. They no doubt learned a lot about torture during
| the Cold War years and from some of the best. It's really a
| shame that countries are allowed to do this and it would seem
| like there would be some international agreement against it.
| PeterisP wrote:
| There's nothing effective that's going to be done about this.
|
| Regimes like that change only when forced by violence or
| credible threats of violence in their territory - actual power,
| not "soft power", it will change only because of large
| quantities of people in Belarus/Minsk actually make the change
| happen (as opposed to just asking for change). Looking around,
| who might make such a change?
|
| 1. Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a
| boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally
| implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict
| with Russia, it's just not going to happen;
|
| 2. The Belarus opposition decided to explicitly avoid trying
| anything and limit their activities to nonviolent protests -
| last year there were some moments where perhaps they had a
| chance to overthrow the regime if they tried, but now the
| regime has succeeded in repressing the opposition (partly
| through acts like in this article), they can't rally masses as
| much anymore, so no chances in the short term;
|
| 3. Russia has no need to do that, they seem to be satisfied
| with the current direction and whatever deals they made;
|
| 4. Internally, the regime seems stable. Last year perhaps there
| were some questions on whether all structures of power would
| support Lukashenka, but that seems to be over for now - but
| IMHO this is the only thing that can change the country's
| direction, if the regime stays unified, Lukashenka will get
| away with all of this (and, most likely, escalate it) for a
| decade or more easily, the existing regime is stuck and can't
| change (since as soon as they loosen the grip, they'll end up
| like Gaddafi), but if a "court coup" happens, they might change
| the direction.
|
| So all that's on the table is complaining loudly and sanctions
| that aren't going to be effective in the short term. I mean,
| the only way how sanctions can work is if they make the
| economic situation dire enough so that Belarus people actually
| do revolt, until that, the regime will make sure that the
| siloviki get their share of the dwindling funds and it won't
| change their behavior as that behavior is now required for
| their self-preservation.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a
| boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally
| implausible
|
| Why so?
|
| NATO completely towers over Belorus army. It has only a
| single airbase -- Minsk, and all its air defence for this
| city only.
|
| More importantly, it's military is critically short of
| skilled manpower, just like is Russian army (having more
| vehicles than pilots for them.)
|
| Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia? Pffff, he
| can trigger it upon his own head, as did Armenia.
|
| Russia will not come when faced with credible force.
|
| > but now the regime has succeeded in repressing the
| opposition (partly through acts like in this article), they
| can't rally masses as much anymore, so no chances in the
| short term;
|
| Any government in the world can be overthrown by a popular
| revolt. Any.
|
| If you think about things seriously, and reject useless
| sentimentalism, using power starts make sense.
|
| _A very obvious benefit of doing so, is that it is the
| quickest, and easiest way to discredit defeatist voices._
| PeterisP wrote:
| > Why so?
|
| I'm not talking about the ability, I'm talking about the
| will to spill your soldiers blood for such a purpose. A
| boots-on-the-ground invasion is off the table because
| western countries would consider that price far, far too
| high for such a goal. I mean, muster a large scale
| invasion, for what? A couple dead journalists? Looking at
| other potential interventions, even literal mass
| concentration camps would probably be tolerated without
| escalating to an invasion. No, the western political will
| in this case is definitely limited to sanctions only. They
| _might_ perhaps assist one side in a local conflict (i.e.
| the locals provide "boots on the grounds" and any blood to
| be spilled, while outsiders provide money and arms), this
| has happened in quite some places, but in Belarus there
| isn't an ongoing violent conflict between two sides,
| there's just the state applying small scale police action
| against individuals, there aren't any "rebel organizations"
| that would be capable of receiving such support.
|
| > Belarus triggering a defence treaty with Russia?
|
| We'd expect Russia to come in with force to prevent a pro-
| western government forming, treaty or not - e.g. if it
| seemed that Lukashenka would agree to cede power to a pro-
| western opposition, I wouldn't be surprised at an
| intervention from Russia even if Lukashenka would object.
| Once again, such scenarios were discussed and considered
| credible last year, but weren't "tested" as it turned out
| differently.
|
| > Russia will not come when faced with credible force.
|
| Perhaps, but there isn't a credible will to apply force, so
| any threats of such force would be treated by Russia as
| obvious bluffs.
|
| > Any government in the world can be overthrown by a
| popular revolt. Any.
|
| Of course, but a popular revolt isn't happening in Belarus,
| the opposition chose (and are still choosing) not to revolt
| and limit their activities to nonviolent protest - if you'd
| call that defeatist, I might agree, but that was the
| initial position and they seem to have managed to spread
| that doctrine, and it would take time to reverse it. And
| the lack of practical reaction of people to the state abuse
| of power and the failure of various attempts at general
| strikes indicates that the conditions aren't even close to
| a revolt.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > I mean, muster a large scale invasion, for what? A
| couple dead journalists?
|
| _For a one big thing, for honour_
|
| For not letting a CPSU nincompoop spitting in the face of
| the Whole Western World from the doorstep of Europe.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Don't hold your breath waiting.
|
| I mean, you might be able to convince me that the world
| _should_ work that way, but it definitely does not work
| that way right now.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Because Russia. And you're right, just back in January an
| angry mob of traitors invaded the US Capitol building and
| were looking to install a dictator and kill Congress people
| and the VP. It can happen anywhere, we're just lucky they
| were buffoons.
| baybal2 wrote:
| You were indeed very fortunate.
|
| But when I called US being few years away from the second
| civil war here 4 years ago, people weren't very kind.
| Half laughed me out, and another half got me banned.
|
| Maybe, sometimes, people have to be told not to take
| _serious political matters of national importance_ so
| dismissively.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Invasion would be completely insane
|
| And its not what I want for my country
|
| In fact I think the only way to remove Lugabe at this point
| is to remove Putin first, but since this is not happening
| before second cold war, my only advice for compatriots
| fortunate enough is to leave
| baybal2 wrote:
| 1. You tell them not to leave
|
| 2. You tell them how to procure, and handle a weapon
|
| 3. You teach them squad, and platoon level tactics
|
| 4. You get few people with proper military education to
| run this
|
| 5. You call defeatists their names
| aus-lander wrote:
| "2. You tell them how to procure, and handle a weapon"
|
| Do you think most people in Belorussia would approve?
|
| .. and then you complain of the (fabricated)
| "Russiagate"..
| PeterisP wrote:
| Didn't Belarus have mass conscription? IMHO a large
| portion of Belarus men should have proper training to
| handle a weapon and squad/platoon tactics from their
| mandatory army year (or year-and-a-half). They don't have
| a lot of weapons, though.
|
| But if most of them were willing to do that, then the
| same motivation would apply for the conscripts who
| currently make up the army and _do_ have all the weapons
| required, so that would be the scenario of "internal
| coup" with army turning against Lukashenka; but we as far
| as we see, neither the army nor the general population
| are currently eager for violent action, so things would
| have to get much worse before they might reconsider.
| praptak wrote:
| There won't be any serious consequences unless Putin agrees to
| it. And his main focus is probably "No second Ukraine".
| Shorel wrote:
| The bigger issue here is... what can Belarusian people do?
|
| It seems nowadays any people acquiring power in a smaller country
| can only care about keeping this power, and nothing else.
|
| And any revolutionary movement against dictators in these smaller
| countries can only hope for the replacement of one oppressive
| regime with another potentially more oppressive regime.
|
| It's a lose-lose situation. And it makes me extremely sad.
| mike_d wrote:
| Visualizations of the flight path:
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2EpIuHXEAYf2I4?format=jpg
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2FLf1MWQAEnMs6?format=jpg
| [deleted]
| balunk wrote:
| Untuk keperluan pribadi Merelakan segala cara
| anotheryou wrote:
| It's really grim:
|
| - Flight EU to EU
|
| - fake bomb threat
|
| - possibly forced to divert to minsk airport by a fighter jet
| (wasn't the nearest airport)
|
| - potential death penalty for targeted journalist
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Ryanair's statement is utterly nuts. No mention of their missing
| passengers:
|
| https://twitter.com/RyanairPress/status/1396543331878981632
| A_non_e-moose wrote:
| "... which was outside Ryanair's control."
|
| No refunds for anyone...
|
| Nothing can finish off a corporate announcement better than a
| Liability Avoidance and Risk Reduction statement :)
| PedroBatista wrote:
| It would be out of character for Ryanair to do or say
| anything different.
| midasuni wrote:
| They didn't charge the passengers extra for the added
| flight, which is something
| arcturus17 wrote:
| "Nothing untoward was found and the aircraft and its passengers
| were cleared to depart"
|
| The omissive wording is utterly revolting. While the Ryanair PR
| people were at it they could've taken it a small step forward
| and said that a few passengers decided to stay as they _really_
| enjoyed the sights.
| pydry wrote:
| I wonder if they picked this idea up after seeing the attempt to
| capture Snowden by grounding morales' plane.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Civilian aircrafts actually have somewhat stronger protections
| than government/military in that regard. So it is worse than
| Morales'
| pydry wrote:
| I wasn't trying to draw an ethical distinction, but if I were
| this wouldn't be the defining attribute of an action that
| constitutes "better". They're both reprehensible.
| Aperocky wrote:
| All of the comments defending it as if it is somehow different.
|
| It's not, your kettle is also black.
| dnautics wrote:
| while clearly an asshole move, "grounding" morales' plane did
| not involve fighter jets coercing the plane down.
| pydry wrote:
| Why did you use quotes?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| the plane technically had to land in austria after all
| other countries refused entry for 'technical' reasons.
|
| This one involved KGB agents who coerced the flight to
| divert by claiming there was a bomb
| ghostwriter wrote:
| what was the basis and the motive for ally countries
| unilaterally not to allow the plane to land? If the
| motives are not different, then the fighter jet could be
| seen as a similar "technical reason" in this case too.
| relativ575 wrote:
| Mental gymnastic you are doing there. Spain and France
| denied the airspace, meaning the flight couldn't gone
| through either of them. There is no "not to allow the
| plane to land". In fact an airplane calling emergency has
| priority to land anywhere, regardless of the political
| difference with the host country.
|
| On this topic, this happened with a flight from a US's
| air base in Afghanistan, rerouted to Iran because of a
| "bureaucratic issue":
|
| [0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-iran-
| aircraft/u-s-says-p...
| ghostwriter wrote:
| > Mental gymnastic you are doing there.
|
| Quite contrary, I'm asking for the basis and the motive
| of denying one specific flight with one specific
| individual on board a routine procedure of air travel,
| something that was allowed to hundreds of other flights
| on that same day. "landing" vs "airspace" is a non-
| essential detail here, and depending on the context of a
| situation, either could be denied to achieve the desired
| goal. I'm asking about the motives of the goal.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It was US pressure obviously, for which the countries
| apologized. It was an asshole move by the US but this is
| on another level, it involves foreign civilians, KGB
| agents, fake bomb threats and fighter jets
| ghostwriter wrote:
| > It was an asshole move by the US but this is on another
| level, it involves foreign civilians, KGB agents, fake
| bomb threats and fighter jets
|
| no doubt, when force is the standard a murderer wins over
| a pickpocket. And then it escalates.
| jeltz wrote:
| I would say the Morales grounding was worse because it
| also infringed on the immunity of states of head on top
| of grounding a plane.
| type0 wrote:
| It uncovered international political coercion to catch
| dissidents and that sets a much more troubling
| precedents.
| dnautics wrote:
| Aside from pragmatism, is there any ethical reason why
| state leaders should enjoy extra rights above anyone
| else?
| dnautics wrote:
| it didn't even "have" to land in austtria, they landed
| there because it was easy. They probably had fuel enough
| to land in any one of a ton of other countries if they so
| chose.
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| No, they certainly didn't have to land in Austria. But
| somehow, god knows why, certain countries closed their
| airspace for that specific plane. I'm inclined to belive
| that more countries would suddenly close their airspace
| too if plane chose not to land in Austria but to go to
| some country where Snowden won't be in danger of being
| arrested - France, Spain, Portugal and Italy are hardly
| the only one that would bow under US pressure.
| Bang2Bay wrote:
| so modus operandi matters. if there were no fighter jets then
| the arrest was ok, it looks like.
| relativ575 wrote:
| Don't you see the difference? US pressured France and Spain
| to deny their airspace, but landing in Vienna was pilot's
| call. The pilot could have returned to Russia if they
| wanted. They erred on the caution side, and they were
| greeted by Austria's president. So shady, but not illegal,
| compared to for example the poisoning of Russia's
| dissidents by FSB.
|
| What do you think would happen if Ryanair's pilot refuse to
| cooperate with Belarus's request?
| pydry wrote:
| One was tricked into grounding, the other was forced
| _shrug_
|
| In both cases it was to detain somebody doing an act of
| public service on behalf of their country - an act
| treated as criminal. This is the important part.
| relativ575 wrote:
| Right, so forced and tricked aren't that much different
| in your book.
|
| Passengers on the Bolivia's flight were at no point in
| danger. They could have picked another country, Russia or
| Russia-friendly one to land. Can you say the same with
| Ryannair's ones? Did they have the choice?
| egao1980 wrote:
| In Bolivian case the search was highly illegal and
| constituted casus beli. In Belorusian case all formal
| legal procedures were followed.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| You jest, surely?
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| What would France and Spain have done if Bolivia's jet
| entered their airspace? I'm betting it would have
| involved fighter jets. That threat is why denying someone
| entry into your airspace is possible. Well, that and
| ground-to-air missiles. There's no need to exhibit force
| if it is already understood that force will by applied if
| you do not cooperate.
| upofadown wrote:
| Here is a relevant ICAO document:
|
| * https://www.wing.com.ua/images/stories/library/ovd/9433.pdf
|
| So I guess the Belarus government would try to claim whatever
| agreement caused this part:
|
| >1.2.1 Pilots-in-command of civil aircraft should be aware that
| interception may take place in the event that military,customs or
| police authorities of a State:
|
| >...
|
| >d) suspect that an aircraft is engaged in illegal flight and/or
| transportation of illicit goods or persons, inconsistent withthe
| aims of the Chicago Convention and contrary to the laws of said
| State.
|
| >...
|
| I note there there is nothing in there about a bomb threat. So
| the bomb threat was likely a separate gambit that didn't work.
|
| This seems to be quite insane either way. If an interception goes
| bad the result could be the destruction of the civil aircraft.
| Not worth the potential risk, no matter who might be on the
| flight.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| What is illicit person? So according to (d) Belarus could
| intercept that aircraft just to extract that journalist as an
| illicit person?
| upofadown wrote:
| From the now updated article:
|
| >Ms Tikhanovskaya said Mr Protasevich, 26, had left Belarus
| in 2019 and covered the events of the 2020 presidential
| election with Nexta, after which criminal charges were filed
| against him in Belarus.
|
| >She said he faced the death penalty in Belarus as he has
| been categorised as a terrorist.
|
| So the charges were pre-concocted. They didn't have to make
| any up at the last moment.
| Aperocky wrote:
| It's probably a calculated gambit, they bet the pilot would
| budge and follow the fighter.
|
| If the pilot didn't I doubt they'd actually shoot the plane
| down, but that's a bet that they took and won. The pilot
| obviously chose the safer option for himself and almost
| everyone onboard.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| An irony to the story is that Poland (who is a party to this as
| the registration country of the actual plane, and a self-declared
| leader of the anti-Lukashenko movement) now demands the EU takes
| strong actions to secure the EU (Poland)'s security.
|
| Literally yesterday prime minister went on record to say they
| will outright ignore the ruling of the highest EU court on an
| ecological / energy case (lignite mining close to the Czech
| border.
| danielEM wrote:
| Nice try Sasha! Wondering if you represent Russian or
| Belarussian regime? Only irony here is that in discussion on
| the topic of journalist who is facing now death penalty you're
| bringing somewhat important (but not in this discussion)
| ecological topic.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Ermmm... what?
|
| The genuine irony is how Poland, my home country, within
| 24hrs went from telling the EU to go stuff itself to begging
| for help, and seemingly even without noticing the
| contradiction.
|
| For the journalist, I feel very sorry (I don't know much
| about him tbh but death penalty is excessive for any crime,
| even more so for one imagined by Lukashenko). This doesn't
| preclude making a wider observation.
|
| But surely, this is what my Russian masters told me to say on
| the major geopolitical forum that is HN. Da svidania.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I am not sure I see the contradiction here at all. If the
| two issues are related, it is in a very tangential manner.
| I mean no offense, but it sounds like a talking points and
| not like an actual argument.
| atq2119 wrote:
| The contradiction is asking for help from the EU on the
| one hand while not accepting the EU's rulings on the
| other hand.
|
| What GP is criticizing is this attitude of trying to get
| representation without taxation, to put it in US terms.
| belval wrote:
| > 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 hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
|
| From the guidelines
| Krasnol wrote:
| Polands politics currently are an irony to history.
| tomaszs wrote:
| Germany, or Italy also ignored UE Court of justice rulings.
| Nothing new.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| I don't think you're part of the cool crowd until you've
| ignored some legal thing the EU requires.
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| Can you please tell which rulings were ignored by Germany and
| Italy? I'm curious.
| ptaipale wrote:
| In addition to fiscal rules mentioned in other comments, an
| interesting case was the confiscation of face masks in
| spring 2020, i.e. blocking of free movement of goods inside
| EU. This was when we were desperately needing to have masks
| for use in hospitals. Germany took them in transit.
|
| It wasn't only Germany, though; also France stopped
| shipments of masks to Sweden. And there were other cases in
| the big key member states.
|
| https://www.svd.se/frankrike-beslagtar-masker-fran-
| svenskt-f...
|
| Normally such freight would go via hubs in Germany, for
| instance; to avoid Germany confiscating masks, my country
| (Finland) hired planes to import masks directly from China,
| without using the hubs in Germany.
| throwawinsider wrote:
| Germany and Italy recurrently ignore the Stability Pact
| rules, thereby threatening the fiscal and monetary
| stability of the region. But when you are Germany or Italy,
| no one will complain and no judge will chase you.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I had an Italian farmer explain the Italian attitude to
| rules and regulations 10ish years ago. His view was that
| breaking rules and regulations was a national pastime and
| seeing what you could get away with was part the fun.
|
| That's how he explained the popularity of Silvio
| Berlusconi too - "of course the guy is a cheat and a
| fraud, but he is cheating for us now".
|
| I'm unsure if these views were in any way representative
| but I found them interesting.
| allendoerfer wrote:
| There is no irony. Poland being a difficult EU member has
| nothing to do with their plane being diverted.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Not with the plane itself, true. It is the reaction and total
| lack of self-consciousness that is beyond me.
|
| "Screw you and your rules. Also, help!"
| rasz wrote:
| Germany ignores EU all the time, currently building second
| pipeline bypassing other EU states in accordance with Putin-
| Merkel pact, the second act to Molotov-Ribbentrop.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| What makes this really complex for the EU is that they have
| tried to punish Poland for this and other various things, but a
| sanction requires the agreement of all member states, and a
| certain state named Hungary has an implicit agreement with
| Poland to never vote in agreement with the EU, and Poland the
| same for Hungary.
|
| As a result, the EU tries to sanction Poland, but Hungary won't
| agree and so the sanction fails. Try to sanction Hungary?
| Poland is out, sanction fails. I have to admit that it's clever
| on Poland and Hungary's part, as it lets them selectively
| ignore some of the EU's more (from their perspective)
| overbearing rulings.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| I think it's the system working as intended. The EU is an
| international organization whose members are fully sovereign
| states.
|
| Unless you want the EU to be a super state that can bully
| it's members with a mere 51% of the vote? The EU would fall
| apart then.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| It is also a realisation that with ambitious projects you
| need to give up some sovereignty. All trade deals do that -
| swap some economic benefit for some legal commitments.
|
| It's not even like the EU has big expectations of Poland.
| The sticking point now is an independent judiciary and free
| press. Seriously, it's embarrassing that Poland has to be
| strong armed into these!
|
| In any case, Poland freely signed up to these commitments,
| it's just bad form to eke out of them like this. Not to
| mention the actual damage politically-corrupted courts do
| to the people and economy in Poland.
| [deleted]
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| "Not to mention the actual damage politically-corrupted
| courts do to the people and economy in Poland."
|
| Who voted them in? If you say that the people voted them
| in, it's painful, but it is the politics of the region.
| One of the terrifying parts of democracy is that the
| people have the right to vote for their leaders,
| including leaders who will actively undermine their own
| democracy, and they can be content with that because
| that's what they wanted. In which case, democracy has
| done what the people wanted, by ruining democracy.
|
| It's kind of like Jury Nullification, where Juries do not
| strictly need to vote on the merits of whether a person
| is guilty or innocent, but can vote against the law and
| know the law can't punish jurors for a "wrong judgement".
| Judges hate that loophole but know it's a necessary part
| of democracy. Similarly, the ability of a democratic
| people to vote to end democracy is democracy working even
| though it is also an awful necessary loophole.
|
| And if you say that we must take effort to prevent a
| democratic people, legally speaking, from democratically
| voting to end democracy, you are now technically anti-
| democratic. That's a weird place to be.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Aspiring dictators don't run on abolishing democracy. It
| is not helpful to frame it like the people chose to ruin
| democracy.
|
| Democracy depends on a strong free press and independent
| courts. A strong free press is not just one part of a
| country's businesses, it is quite literally the fourth
| pillar of democracy.
| Thiez wrote:
| > It's kind of like Jury Nullification, where Juries do
| not strictly need to vote on the merits of whether a
| person is guilty or innocent, but can vote against the
| law and know the law can't punish jurors for a "wrong
| judgement". Judges hate that loophole but know it's a
| necessary part of democracy.
|
| Juries are not a thing in most countries that are
| generally considered democracies, so jury nullification
| can't be all that neccesary.
| fsloth wrote:
| "I think it's the system working as intended."
|
| The system supports autocratic state capture in Poland and
| Hungary through massive EU subsidies - my tax money. No,
| it's not working.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| If you think that the EU (which is primarly Germany and
| France) are giving out free monies to Eastern Europe just
| like that, then you have fallen victim to Berlins
| propaganda.
|
| In reality, what Germany and France buy with that
| ,,bribe" is being able to freely export their goods (cars
| and retail items via international supermarket chains in
| particular) to Eastern European markets, while making
| sure the profits go back to the motherland (and are taxed
| there by the German/French government, leaving nothing in
| Eastern Europe).
|
| You get your tax monies more than back.
| fsloth wrote:
| This is not about money flow. I'm fine with that. What is
| not fine is the state capture this money flow
| facilitates. The state capture propagates a crony system,
| that will lead to a reduced economic output from what it
| could have been, and hence requiring more support in the
| future. The situation is _both_ economically and
| politically untenable.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Ah ok I see, could you explain what exactly you mean by
| ,,state capture"? That the money goes to the state
| instead of private companies and the state is inherently
| wasteful etc?
| fsloth wrote:
| I advice you familiarize yourself with the state capture
| in Hungary by Orban and his Fidez party. The ruling party
| has eridacated free press and is close on ending judicial
| independence. They remain in power mainly because they
| funnel EU money to their voters. Poland is on it's way in
| copying this system.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I actually agree. The EU really doesn't like the politics
| of Hungary and Poland (which can be understood), but the
| system is working as intended.
| vkou wrote:
| What some call working as intended, others look on, and
| say 'broken by design'.
|
| What's even the point of issuing rulings that can be
| ignored by the collusion of two out of 27 members?
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| It's very simple. The EU was originally a market union,
| which every member state profited from. For some reason,
| the EU has been adopting more and more powers completely
| unrelated to international trade, and it shows because
| you will never get 27 different nations to agree on
| controversial issues.
| vkou wrote:
| Generally these sorts of organizational problems are
| resolved by having different thresholds of consensus
| required for adopting different kinds of policies.
| Majority, super-majority... Consensus minus one, on the
| other hand, is another way of saying 'Impossible'.
| will4274 wrote:
| > Consensus minus one, on the other hand, is another way
| of saying 'Impossible'.
|
| No it isn't. Some 30% of decisions are made unanimously
| in scotus, and this is hardly an outlier. Requiring
| unanimous consent makes things way slower, yes, but it
| doesn't prevent them. Not all organizational changes need
| to be controversial. Several conservative programming
| languages did well by requiring unanimity in initial
| years - only adding what all could agree was good. It
| only requires those members to exercise good judgement.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Seems to me that the environmental cost of mining is
| certainly related to international trade
| kbelder wrote:
| And selling fresh milk to your neighbor is related to
| 'interstate commerce', and regulated by the federal
| government.
|
| Once you start looking for tenuous connections, every
| human activity can be subsumed under trade. It's a
| wildcard.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| And this is why I don't think that the ability for a few
| states to group together and ignore the EU's rulings is
| an automatically bad thing. States know that this
| protects them from becoming the US and losing most of
| their sovereignty.
| Macha wrote:
| Hungary and Poland both joined when the EU was in its
| current form - they knew what they were getting into.
| It's not liked they joined the EC or ECSC and just got
| pulled along for the ride into the EU's current state.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It depends on what you think the design should have been.
| Some might look on and say that the ability for states to
| group together and not permit what they view as an
| overbearing ruling as a feature. Others would call it
| dissent.
|
| On the other hand, EU states retain their national
| sovereignty, and could leave the EU if they disagreed
| with the EU that deeply, which the UK has currently done.
| The ability for states to group together and buck
| rulings, in a sense, makes it less likely for states to
| leave the union entirely. This ability may also have
| helped convince states to join the EU in the first place.
| varispeed wrote:
| Ironically, something called "Liberum veto" is what
| caused Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to collapse.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
|
| The fact that one state can reject anything, is going to
| be the end of the EU if they don't fix it.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The EU is a very interesting thing to watch as an American
| because the EU has parallels to our Federal Government in
| scope, but is almost like an alternate history where States
| had the right to secede and retained nationhood unlike our
| states.
|
| Also, if the political tensions in our nation continue to
| increase and don't stop, I would not be surprised in a
| decade from now if we start talking about replacing the
| Federal Government with a more EU-like arrangement.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| It's basically why the Articles of Confederation failed.
| The federal government was too made to weak to achieve
| much - each region (New England, New York, Pennsylvania,
| Virginia, Carolina) was individually powerful enough to
| ignore it.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Although, the EU is a lot _stronger_ than the Articles of
| Confederation ever were, given that the EU has sorted out
| how it gets funded from year to year.
| runarberg wrote:
| I'm not an EU expert so hopefully someone can correct me
| if I'm wrong. But I think the USA-EU comparisons are
| superficial at best. The EU has half the states the USA
| does but 50% more population.
|
| Unlike the USA--which has a really strong executive
| branch--there is hardly any executive branch in the EU.
| Instead the executive powers are held almost entirely by
| the member states. The EU does have a legislative branch
| (just like the USA) with around 650,000 people per
| representative. USA has around 750,000 but that number is
| further devalued by the USA senate (3,500,000 people per
| representative) which can hold a lot of power over the
| congress. I'm not aware that the EU has any equivalent.
|
| The scope of the two systems is also vastly different.
| The USA federal government represents the foreign policy
| of each of the state, funds a military which answers to
| the government, finances much of the infrastructure
| within the USA, etc. In the EU foreign policy is largely
| held by the member states, there is no EU military, and
| funding for infrastructure projects is more likely to
| come mostly from the member state it self, then from the
| EU. The USA collects federal taxes, while the EU gets
| their funding from the member states.
|
| Both have a federated court system. The USA have federal
| criminal courts which I'm not sure that the EU has, or at
| least not in the same way the USA does.
|
| To summarize: The US federal government and the EU have
| in common that they both have a democratically elected
| legislator (both with relatively low representation) and
| they both have a federal court system. But this is where
| the similarities end.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| They don't have much similarities right now, that's
| agreed. However, I still think it's interesting because
| imagine if US States retained their sovereignty and the
| ability to secede at the US Founding. We might have ended
| up with something much closer to the EU today.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| There was a period in American history, the Articles of
| Confederation, which is more similar to how the EU works
| today.
|
| > The Articles of Confederation created a loose union of
| states. The confederation's central government consisted
| of a unicameral Congress with legislative and executive
| function, and was composed of delegates from each state
| in the union. Congress received only those powers which
| the states had previously recognized as belonging to king
| and parliament.[15] Each state had one vote in Congress,
| regardless of its size or population, and any act of
| Congress required the votes of nine of the 13 states to
| pass;[16] any decision to amend the Articles required the
| unanimous consent of the states. Each state's legislature
| appointed multiple members to its delegation, allowing
| delegates to return to their homes without leaving their
| state unrepresented.[17] Under the Articles, states were
| forbidden from negotiating with other nations or
| maintaining a military without Congress's consent, but
| almost all other powers were reserved for the states.[18]
| Congress lacked the power to raise revenue, and was
| incapable of enforcing its own legislation and
| instructions. As such, Congress was heavily reliant on
| the compliance and support of the states.[19]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Period#Nation
| al_...
|
| Of course, the EU functions better since it has its
| funding sorted out, whereas the executive under the
| Confederation more or less begged for money every year
| and did not usually get its requested allocation.
| glogla wrote:
| I'd rather go the other way around and make EU more like
| US (in organization, not in approach to solving things).
| Macha wrote:
| And the EU should be free to insist on terms for membership
| of the organisation. If Poland/Hungary don't want to follow
| the terms they should just leave, like the UK just did.
|
| But they don't want that hassle, and they want to keep the
| EU benefits, so this mutual veto of sanctions is definitely
| a loophole to keep as many benefits without meeting the
| requirements.
|
| The EU is not the UN, while the UN's goal is to have every
| country in membership, and so it doesn't expel
| dictatorships just for being dictatorships, the EU is
| pretty explicit about democracy and human rights being
| requirements, which is why e.g. Turkey has not been allowed
| in so long.
|
| Had Orban had the level of control when Hungary joined that
| he has now, Hungary would not have been allowed in. PiS is
| probably not yet at that level, but it's clear they would
| like to be.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| And in which case, I would say this requirement, in
| practice, wasn't a requirement. I don't blame Hungary and
| Poland for gaming the system as much as I blame the EU
| for having this loophole (or feature, or necessary evil,
| depending on view).
| loceng wrote:
| Sounds like they need to update the law somehow to prevent
| this. I can't quite figure out the starting logic for this
| though.
| loceng wrote:
| Thanks to those who downvoted showing the continued idiocy
| or lack of many people on HN who can't see the value that a
| simple comment can have even on triggering replies; and
| reaffirming why downvotes are stupid and lazy.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| But to update the law (because this sanctioning mechanism
| is so deep in EU law), you would need agreement from all
| member states. You can see where this is going... The EU
| won't try it because Hungary and Poland would obviously
| vote against it. And the cycle continues.
|
| The current EU plan is to hope that Hungary or Poland's
| governments get replaced with one that won't support the
| other, and then consider doing the sanctions.
|
| The other EU plan is to pursue other punishments that don't
| require a full sanction and basically cause as much hurt as
| possible even if they can't do the ideal remedy.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| They already tried to do a runaround when Poland and
| Hungary threatened to veto a Covid recovery fund -
| basically, just set it up anyway for the rest of the 25
| as a side deal that wouldn't involve the two and they
| wouldn't get any funds. In the end Poland and Hungary
| acquiesced, yet in a petty dictatorial fashion claimed
| they had won by forcing the EU to include them.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Let's not use the word ,,dictatorial" in an extremely
| inflationary way. You can call it a government PR spin if
| you want, but I think no country in the EU is anywhere
| close to anything like North Korea or even Belarus.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| If anything, it's "dictatorial" in the Sacha Baron Cohen
| "The Dictator" sense: "Victory! We won! We forced them to
| include us ...by acquiescing to their demands."
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| I see, so somethink akin to newspeak: War is peace,
| losing is winning!
| alkonaut wrote:
| What sanctions are left to use? Asset freezes and travel
| sanctions weren't enough.
|
| Total export sanctions to the west? They sell some fuel etc. and
| EU is a large trading partner.
| varjag wrote:
| - Drop official relations to the regime in any capacity.
| Diplomatic, economic, sports. Exclude it from membership in any
| organization where Russia has no veto right.
|
| - Recognize Tsikhanouskaya government as interim government in
| exile. Insist that this government is the official venue for
| any engagement (exports, imports, sport event participation).
|
| - Ban all regime officials in all branches from entry.
| ckdarby wrote:
| You move to tactics that can cripple a country even if the
| country doesn't need international trade.
|
| The focus shifts to cyber warfare where you take out
| infrastructure.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Tsikhanouskaya has no government and cannot be recognized as
| a legitimate president, only as opposition leader. There are
| only indications that she may have got popular vote, but
| until there are free and transparent elections it is only a
| rumor - not enough for recognition by democratic standards.
| In this role the only topic that can be discussed with her is
| the peaceful transition of power and organization of new
| elections - until they happen, there is no recognized
| government and no negotiation party.
|
| Active non-recognition can be a good option here: since there
| is no recognized government, in all applicable cases (events,
| elections in international organizations etc) it shall be
| decided that Belarus abstained from vote or was absent.
| Membership and contractual payments from Belarus can be
| rejected and considered not happening, resulting in
| suspensions, sanctions and cancellations and so on and so on.
| varjag wrote:
| Tsikhanuskaya has a competent skeletal crew that can be
| built into a government, that's just a technicality. And
| yes it absolutely can get recognized; historically
| governments were recognized with less. If democratic
| process is your only yardstick for recognition of world
| governments, I have bad news about a lot of places that are
| none the less recognized.
|
| It is a matter of political will, which is the only thing
| that is practically lacking.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| This won't be an acceptable solution for EU. The core
| value of our Union is the rule of law and we must stick
| to it, taking the legalistic approach even if constraints
| of it feel too strong. The rule of law is currently being
| undermined by Russia and its satellites, exploiting every
| misstep of Western governments to demonstrate the
| internal weakness of our democracy. Lowering the bar
| would mean accepting their game, where laws can be bent
| and serve only as a formal coverup of lawless actions of
| the rulers.
| varjag wrote:
| EU member states have little problem recognizing regimes
| like Sisi's, post-crackdowns Iran or indeed Lukashenka's
| own right until the last summer. Neither of these
| recently were outcomes of democratic processes with
| statements from the monitoring institutions acknowledging
| that. There's hardly a room to lower the bar anymore.
|
| It is hard to see requiring an alternative candidate
| (whose persecution blew up the country) register a
| victory in increasingly totalitarian place as anything
| but deflection. Bailing out on technicality.
| versale wrote:
| Actually this tactics was tried once with Guaido in
| Venezuela.
| snvzz wrote:
| Total isolation would be a start.
| Tade0 wrote:
| That's about the worst idea possible. Many people work in
| neighbouring countries and cross the border regularly to see
| their families.
|
| Such a move would affect them the most.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Ultimately it's the people's responsibility to form a
| functional government that doesn't abuse it's neighbors or
| fellow citizens. Punishing the entire country is punishing
| the responsible party. If they have little power at this
| point to fix it at this point it's their fault for arriving
| at this point and they may need to pay the long term cost
| in blood for letting it get that bad.
| rebuilder wrote:
| That's the point, to rile up the population so much that
| the regime must either cave to whatever is being demanded
| of them or face an uprising.
|
| Will it work? Very iffy - often the only thing worse than
| an autocratic regime is whatever fills the power vacuum its
| fall creates. Disorderly transfers of power are bad
| business.
| monoideism wrote:
| Belarussian population has been admirably fired up for
| quite some time. There have been multiple uprisings.
|
| But when they're up against armed militia and police,
| they can't do much (this is why so many Americans are
| adamant about the 1st Amendment).
|
| Targeted sanctions are the only ethical option at this
| point. Don't make the population suffer like we did for
| Iraq.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| People of Belarus had enough arms in hands to start armed
| uprising. It was their deliberate choice to refrain from
| violence.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| They had not. And now even hunting gear has been
| confiscated from those few that had it.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| It's easy to call for a Hail Mary strategy from afar.
| Protest is becoming more common[1], but protests that
| successfully topple regimes remain rare.
|
| I could swear I saw recent research indicating that the
| fraction of protest movements that lead to regime change
| has fallen over time, but I can't find it now.
|
| [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-
| detail/2020/03/10/politica...
| rebuilder wrote:
| I don't mean to call for anything, just pointing out that
| sanctions mainly hurting the population may be the
| intended effect.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| That's fair. I'll soften my point, to say merely that the
| call is often made, not that you were making it.
| varispeed wrote:
| Isn't the regime a responsibility of the society? I think
| people should bear the consequences of the regime they
| decided to keep having.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I would agree, but the problem is that such sanctions hurt
| the population the most. This is not a good choice in
| dictatorships as the population has no choice who to vote
| for. The regime top clique will keep eating well off smuggled
| imports, while the general population will starve.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| > This is not a good choice in dictatorships as the
| population has no choice who to vote for.
|
| The population voted for the opposition candidate, took to
| the streets when the results were rigged, but had no
| leaders willing to escalate the confrontation when the
| state had its pants down. The dictator has buckled his
| pants and has gradually reduced the opposition to posting
| memes in Telegram chats. And even this activity is no
| longer safe.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| > but had no leaders willing to escalate the
| confrontation when the state had its pants down
|
| Are we talking about military leaders who support the
| current dictator? What could the leaders of the
| opposition have done to escalate the confrontation
| further?
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| > had no leaders Leaders were either killed or forced
| into exile.
| snvzz wrote:
| >but the problem is that such sanctions hurt the population
| the most.
|
| This sort of coexistence has been attempted and patently
| failed.
|
| It's their population, not ours. An important distinction.
|
| We (rest of the world, but particularly Europe) need to get
| stricter.
| pdpi wrote:
| What does that achieve, though?
| jiofih wrote:
| Pressure to stop pulling this kind of bs if they want to
| remain a viable economy in Europe.
|
| Honestly, I wish the next step would be for NATO to step
| in and restore the country to a legitimate government.
| Between this, Syria, Lebanon, Ukraine, China, Israel, the
| world has been way too conivent with the destruction of
| democracy.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| >if they want to remain a viable economy in Europe.
|
| About half of Belarus's trade is with Russia. All this
| would accomplish is making it 90%+ and deepen ties with
| Russia. Might as well suggest having Russia annex Belarus
| as a response to the situation.
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| Yeah, you have such a great legacy when defending
| democracy all over the world even in cases where you were
| absolutely dominant military power that this one would be
| walk in a park - Russia would just stand down, peacefully
| looking NATO invading its ally on its doorstep.
| Fortunately no-one in NATO has such illusions.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > if they want to remain a viable economy
|
| What a country wants is not in general what those in
| power want.
| pdpi wrote:
| Sanctions only achieve that if they punish the
| illegitimate government (hopefully without punishing the
| rest of the population). Being tough for the sake of
| being tough without having a clear model for what
| leverage you're getting is just political posturing.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Belarus is in military alliance with Russia (Collective
| Security Treaty Organization). Any military action
| against Belarus will be met with Russian army defending
| its territory.
|
| Also I think that the more sanctions are put from West to
| Belarus, the closer it gets to become another Russia
| state. I'm not sure if that's the outcome West wants to
| see.
| jiofih wrote:
| And military action from Belarus against an EU civilian
| aircraft should be met with what?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Belarus was within its bounds. They did not shoot
| aircraft, they released aircraft and all EU citizens
| shortly afterwards, they have legal reasons to do so
| (which was likely fabricated, but one can't prove that).
| It's a bad accident, but it's not a war.
| throwaway21_ wrote:
| Belarus airspace - Belarus rules. If EU civilian
| aircrafts doesn't like it they are free not to enter that
| airspace.
| Otek wrote:
| I know what I will write will sound like I don't have any
| empathy but... hitting population hard, to the starvation
| even, will make them go after Lukashenko. This is why
| communism in Poland was defeated by the workers. They had
| no bread so they had to rise. Again, I would like to
| underline that this is not a solution that I support but
| history showed us this is how u make a revolution and real
| change
| T-A wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
| awb wrote:
| Maybe decades ago, but there was no uprising in North
| Korea despite famines and food rationing.
| def_true_false wrote:
| Well, Germany could build a gas pipeline through Belarus, too.
|
| /s
| gpm wrote:
| Borrowing from someone somewhere else in this thread, banning
| all air travel into and out of Belarusian air space seems
| appropriate.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Russia has military bases and radar installations in Belarus.
| What are you planning to do about them? Have NATO shoot down
| Russian aircraft over Belarus?
| Badfood wrote:
| Belarusian government controlled medias top story is from 3 days
| ago, Lukashenko propoganda anticipating sanctions. As if we need
| more smoking guns:
| https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-urges-to-mull...
| abc789654567 wrote:
| Long live Belarus! Congratulations to Mr Lukashenko and all
| belorussian people in general on capturing another traitor on CIA
| payroll whose goal is turning Belarus into another European
| banana republic like most of the rest ex-Eastern block countries.
| d0ne wrote:
| This precedent can not allowed to stand. It is a direct attack
| against free speech and international sovereignty regardless of
| your affiliation.
| throw0101a wrote:
| First Freedom of the Air: the right or privilege, in respect of
| scheduled international air services, granted by one State to
| another State or States to fly across its territory without
| landing (also known as a First Freedom Right).
|
| * https://www.icao.int/pages/freedomsair.aspx
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air
|
| Note that Belarus is not a signatory to the International Air
| Services Transit Agreement (IASTA):
|
| *
| https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/list%20of%20parties/t...
|
| Neither is Lithuania, but Greece is.
| d0ne wrote:
| Accurate. Country of Origin is basis in this case which is
| Greece. Adequate response would be to indefinitely bar all
| Belarusian originating flights from traveling through any
| signatory's airspace.
|
| However, this most likely only furthers the goals of the
| current Belarusian administration for the population there.
| Enforced strictly, to include diplomatic flights, it may
| cause measurable change.
| antocv wrote:
| Did you say the same thing when US downed a diplomatic flight
| by Bolivian president in 2013? Honestly, did you say this is
| not allowed to stand? To down a presidents plane in Vienna just
| because US thought Snowden was on that flight? Answer
| truthfully.
| colanderman wrote:
| Yes, many people did. Why are you baselessly accusing the
| parent of hypocrisy?
| croes wrote:
| Did parent say the same about the bolivian presidents
| plane?
| dnautics wrote:
| I certainly denounced it, but also keep in mind that the
| president's plane was not "downed" in nearly the same
| fashion. Nobody forced the plane to land in any particular
| spot, and (if you believe Morales) no one searched the plane.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| So let's be clear. The US didn't "down" anyone -- the US does
| not have jurisdiction over any of the airspace in question:
|
| > The day after his TV interview, Morales's Dassault Falcon
| 900, carrying him back to Bolivia from Russia, took off from
| Vnukovo Airport, but was rerouted to Austria when France,
| Spain, Portugal and Italy[2] reportedly denied access to
| their airspace, allegedly due to suspicions that Snowden was
| on board.
|
| I'm sure the US applied diplomatic pressure, but those
| countries are all developed, rich economies who were
| perfectly capable of saying no and preserving their
| sovereignty. It was done with full consent of the countries
| in question.
| emn13 wrote:
| Evo Morales' plane wasn't grounded by _anybody_ ; they
| chose to land, with a suspiciously convenient reason. Given
| Evo Morales whole anti-imperialist persona, and how he
| hyped his support for Snowden (appearing to consider
| offering Snowden asylum on a public TV interview just a day
| before, to hammer it home), and the fact that it's not even
| really clear which countries _actually_ denied access to
| their airspace (the Bolivian account is disputed), and that
| _nobody_ forced the plane to land or even requested it to,
| you kind of have to conclude that this was a political
| stunt by Evo Morales.
|
| To put it this was: the US and it's allies were played for
| fools, highlighting their unreasonableness. But in no way
| shape or form is this similar to the current situations in
| anything but the most superficial sense.
| tastyminerals2 wrote:
| That was a direct order from the self proclaimed president.
| The plane was 10 min away from Vilnius airport but the
| fighter jet was closer. Do you understand the difference? And
| btw there is a high chance the journalist will be executed.
| halukakin wrote:
| You cannot justify actions using other wrong actions.
| thesz wrote:
| Everyone in politics do that all the time.
|
| Forget politics, let's turn to normal people. Illicit
| actions of criminals justify the use of policing force on
| them in all countries of the world.
|
| The actions are the same: coercion through force,
| basically. In one case they are wrong (criminal), in other
| case they are good and justified by wrong actions
| (policing).
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I thought this should not stand yes. Not sure if I said so
| publicly at the time. I was less active on fora.
|
| PS: I am a Snowden supporter though :) I think he did us a
| great service. I'm not American but he exposed the extent to
| which our details are shared with US intelligence agencies.
| vitno wrote:
| Whataboutism is a lazy rhetoric device, the term was
| literally coined by Kasparov about Soviet dictator
| apologists.
| antocv wrote:
| This is literally not a whatabout since we are discussing
| the same actions here, forcing an airplane down and
| breaking international laws, norms and traditions.
|
| Let us try to decide if some of the posters here are
| hypocrites or not.
| vitno wrote:
| Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of
| the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit
| an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy
| without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| fkla wrote:
| That is what the term means in popular culture, but what
| are the implications?
|
| In practice it means that the side who accuses first
| (currently mostly SJWs) gets to speak and attack others
| while using "whataboutism" as a shield to shut up their
| opponents.
| Bang2Bay wrote:
| "There is a precedent and the precedent was followed" is
| the other sides argument.
| ghostwriter wrote:
| Disproving an argument is not a prerequisite for exposing
| hypocrisy, these acts can be done separately. And if the
| other party doesn't address the accusation of hypocrisy
| there might not be a need for disproving the argument to
| them, as their position might be politically motivated
| and not aimed at resolving the issue in principle.
| rebuilder wrote:
| If Charles Manson had said murder was wrong, we might
| have doubted his sincerity but hardly the point of the
| actual statement.
| ghostwriter wrote:
| in this case, it is more akin to Charles Manson
| condemning Shoko Asahara for cult activity, and
| dismissing his "then why are you doing it?" as
| "whataboutism".
|
| It is important to know whether the condemning party
| applies the same standards to their own activities,
| because there's no possibility of resolving the issue at
| hand without both parties applying the same principles
| and standards on everyone, including themselves. And
| dismissing the significance of this knowledge as
| "whataboutism" is short-sighted, because it's the tool of
| establishing standards of morality, and it gives a hint
| to third parties about the nature of their neighbours
| involved in the dispute.
| wwwdonohue wrote:
| That's exactly what whataboutism is for. Accusing someone
| of being a hypocrite without addressing the actual point
| at all.
|
| Edit: and with zero evidence that they might even be a
| hypocrite in the first place...
| Bang2Bay wrote:
| The point is about precedent.
| mr_woozy wrote:
| wooosh you moron
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| Honest question, is your goal to keep the morales incident
| out of this discussion? Is it not irrelevant?
| jessaustin wrote:
| This is the definitive analysis of "whataboutism":
|
| https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-
| whatab...
| greesil wrote:
| What about other analysis?
|
| This also seems definitive:
| https://cjlockett.com/2021/01/10/the-rhetorical-laziness-
| of-...
| sbelskie wrote:
| "To down" a plane makes it sound like it was shot down.
| juanani wrote:
| Cannot be allowed to stand by whom? Everyone else is too busy
| silencing proper journalists, in what world are we where you
| actually think there is a country that stands for 'free
| speech'? Speech that's against the status quo gets silenced,
| just cus you buy everything the MSM sells doesn't mean the rest
| of the world has to. People need to travel(or explore different
| perspectives if possible) more or at least stop spreading
| ignorance.
| madmaniak wrote:
| One of the last countries with existing government. Good job! The
| "journalist" was supporting west baked revolution to ruin and
| bring down this country to the level of other post soviet
| countries - which took this path before.
|
| And there is no free speech here and other media.
| notdang wrote:
| So many words about the situation, but what we should realize is
| what Roman Protasevich and his girlfriend are going through now.
| I don't even want to think.
| weggg34 wrote:
| I hope the EU will do something and not just as usual express a
| concern. The entire world is laughing about European weaknesses.
| modularform123 wrote:
| So-called 'journalists' carrying water for anti-national forces
| should, at a minimum, be forced to always watch their backs. The
| USA, too, has many such traitors operating with impunity.
| avodonosov wrote:
| According to Ukrainian journalists, a similar plan was carried
| out by US and Ukrainian intelligence last summer, when a group on
| a flight from Minsk to Istanbul was planned to be arrested after
| forceful landing in Ukraine. The plan was interrupted by Belarus
| detaining the group before they took the flight, based on an
| alleged leak from the Ukraine president office.
|
| https://jamestown.org/program/the-wagner-affair-in-belarus-a...
|
| https://censor.net/ru/news/3266959/butusov_lukashenko_primen...
|
| https://en.thepage.ua/news/bellingcat-is-making-a-film-about...
| kensai wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| seppel wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| USA good Russia bad. Or USA bad Russia good.
|
| Both situations are crap.
|
| I see it like: egomaniacs running those 2 governments,
| bad.
| mopsi wrote:
| In addition, it was a scheduled passenger flight between
| two capitals of EU/NATO countries, not some private
| flight with special clearances. Completely unrelated
| civilians returning from a holiday inside the EU were
| taken hostage.
| tpmx wrote:
| It's pretty close to an act of war.
| seppel wrote:
| > A threat of violence is a very large difference, I
| would not call that just window dressing.
|
| They forced the plane to land by locking all airspace
| around it. And yes, they would also have started fighter
| jets if the plane would enter the forbidden airspace.
| tpmx wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| We don't know if Snowden wouldn't have been arrested in
| Austria had he been on the flight.
| tpmx wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| What are they charging this guy with, anyway? The article
| has no details on that whatsoever.
| tpmx wrote:
| It's an actual dictatorship, does it matter?
| agilob wrote:
| Serious question: what can EU, Greece and Lithuania do? Send
| angry letter?
| 988747 wrote:
| It's 21st century - they will post some angry Tweets and FB
| posts.
| mrandish wrote:
| 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.
| john_doesky wrote:
| > This effectively holds those planes hostage as a
| bargaining chip
|
| Are the good guys allowed to do anything? Are we going to
| take a terrorist's family hostage to use them as as
| bargaining chip against the terrorist?
| agilob wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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.
| morelisp wrote:
| > Refuse to allow the transit of any Belarus top officials
| anywhere in the EU.
|
| Hasn't this already been the case since November?
|
| https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-
| releases/2020...
|
| _Restrictive measures include a travel ban and an asset
| freeze. The travel ban impedes those listed from entering
| or transiting through EU territories, while the asset
| freeze is used against the funds or economic resources of
| the listed persons. In addition, EU citizens and companies
| are forbidden from making funds available to the listed
| individuals and entities... Today 's decision follows up on
| the agreement reached by the EU foreign affairs ministers
| at their video conference meeting on 19 November 2020. The
| sanctions will now apply with immediate effect... A second
| set of sanctions targeting Alexandr Lukashenko and 14 other
| officials was imposed on 6 November 2020._
|
| I mean we can quibble about what constitutes "top
| officials" and the expansion is not daily - but it does
| exist and it is expanding.
| odiroot wrote:
| EU states have no problem signing big deals with Russia, who
| performs even more questionable moves. Belarus won't feel a
| thing.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Yeah, Russia straight up murders journalists and nothing
| happens.
| adventured wrote:
| The largest trade partners for Belarus are: Russia, Ukraine,
| Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, China (imports),
| Lithuania, and Italy (imports).
|
| The EU can severely damage the economy of Belarus by cutting
| off all trade and financial ties. And then work with the US
| to essentially destroy the country economically by cutting it
| off to nearly all global trade and financing. The only thing
| left to prop it up would be Russia and some Chinese imports;
| it would make Belarus a hermit state economically.
|
| All the US has to do is say: we'll sanction any bank,
| corporation or person that does business with Belarus. Most
| will instantly capitulate, just as they did with Iran.
|
| If the US asks Britain, Poland and Ukraine to suspend all
| trade ties to Belarus, they'll do it. Combine that with the
| EU members, and Belarus no longer functions in terms of
| having access to the global economy.
|
| The downside to smashing Belarus in such a way, which would
| be very easy to do, is that it'll just throw Belarus into the
| hands of Russia entirely. Lukashenko knows that context with
| the West and has been playing the angles for a long time
| accordingly.
| linspace wrote:
| The EU, if willing, could crush Belarus. Probably not the
| best action.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Start investigating about Russian high-state officials.
| Plenty of them have EU or US citizenship. Sometimes their
| relatives, but it's all from stolen money. Arrest their
| goods, put their money on hold, until they present proofs of
| their money being earned by a lawful means (those proofs will
| be fake, because their money are from bribes, extortions,
| thefts).
|
| I'm sure that Belarus is in the same boat.
|
| Sherlock Holmes's house in London is owned by Nazarbayev's
| daughter. It's so ironic.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Do the same thing to some prominent Belarussians? Trade
| sanctions?
| TravelnSalesman wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > _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.
| TomWP wrote:
| 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
| mopsi wrote:
| 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.
| TomWP wrote:
| You idea about a misinterpretation of Gorbachev's words
| "violation of the spirit" is contradicted by the rest of
| that sentence, binding the spirit to the words of the
| Treaty of 1990.
|
| The very promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand
| eastward is, as he says, legally enshrined in that
| treaty: "Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or
| their carriers will not be stationed", though only for
| the east "part of Germany". At that time it would have
| been unthinkable to discuss any further expansion of
| NATO.
|
| To blatantly deny this fact is "modern-day NATO
| propaganda". But you are welcome to claim, that "no
| discussion, no promises, no agreement" about this was
| ever written in treaties - if you every time remember to
| add "except for the part about eastern Germany, where
| that promise is very well documented".
| john_doesky wrote:
| Gorbachev confirms it in some interviews and denies in
| others.
|
| Here he confirms it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world
| news/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."
| madhadron wrote:
| Plus any agreement would have been with the USSR, not the
| state of Russia that now occupies part of the former
| territory of the USSR.
| allendoerfer wrote:
| Hackernews needs a ,,flag Russian troll" button.
| thway15269037 wrote:
| And there certainly no need for a "flag Western NATO
| troll". After all, only russians can be bad, militaristic,
| zealous and their patriotism must be punished by death, no
| less.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Time to close Belarus airspace for western traffic IMO.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Don't think that is exactly practical for many flights...
| Specially around Eastern Europe...
| raverbashing wrote:
| At some point, it doesn't matter.
|
| Qatar was doing massive detours a couple of years ago to keep
| flying (of course money wasn't an issue for them)
|
| But detouring Bielorussia might be even cheaper than forced
| landings, who knows.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| It wasn't practical for MH17 to fly around the Donbass either
| but it would have prevented a terrible tragedy.
|
| And there flights weren't even officially targeted. This
| flight was intercepted by an armed military jet. From there
| it can quickly escalate in the event of a misunderstanding.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| For the specific flight in question that would've been around
| 60km or 5 minute detour.
| rebuilder wrote:
| Who would want to fly over Belarus now?
| arodyginc wrote:
| I have no problem flying over there, lol
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Probably lots of other individual people too. Perhaps the
| bigger question is which airlines would want to.
|
| Unless Ryanair's reputation takes a big hit, I'm guessing
| the answer is all of them.
| leot wrote:
| This and more: ground all flights in and out until the
| journalist is released.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| For the sanction to really bite, would need to block not just
| air travel, but people. Otherwise diplomats from Belarus
| could just fly to e.g. Russia first, and from there to
| wherever they were going.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| There's a train between Belarus and Kaliningrad going thru
| Lithuania.
|
| Detain every single passenger for rest of the year.
| [deleted]
| tclover wrote:
| When USA did the same thing to the Snowden jet, nobody said
| anything. Now watch the reaction of all the US satellites lol,
| what a fucking clown world...
| timeon wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| tclover wrote:
| reee this is different this time, our freedom fighters but
| their dictator lol
| [deleted]
| adventured wrote:
| Your claim is false. The US did not do the same thing to "the
| Snowden jet."
|
| No plane was diverted due to a fake bomb scare to force a
| landing.
|
| The Bolivian President's plane landing was a PR stunt solely
| for his own self-aggrandizement to be seen as challenging the
| US, it was not forced to land by the US or by a US fighter jet.
| alibarber wrote:
| There were also no civilians on the plane - which by most
| measures takes it to a different and altogether darker level.
| tclover wrote:
| yeah not exactly the same, but worse
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| Denied to cross airspace is worse than being forced to land
| at gunpoint?
| monocasa wrote:
| Denying enough airspace to a plane already in flight is
| just as dangerous as a gun to the head, and just as much
| of a threat.
|
| The machinations pretending it's not is what pushes it
| into being worse.
| finiteseries wrote:
| A Europe -> South America flight being denied airspace
| while still in Europe is clearly not as threatening as a
| literal gun to one's head.
| monocasa wrote:
| NATO countries revoking airspace when you're flying
| through NATO controlled airspace over a US geopolitical
| matter is a threat as deadly as a gun to your head.
| Rerouting and not landing would be met with more airspace
| walls the opposite direction.
|
| It's not a question of fuel, it's a question of geometry.
| You have two options, comply or death.
| juanani wrote:
| According to this thread, when the West does it, it is called
| 'diplomacy', when their manufactured foes do it, it is
| obviously authoritarian oppression. It's getting tougher to
| keep up with all the mental gymnastics with the western
| narrative, but this usually helps: West=good, not
| west=baaaaaaad. Carry on.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| To be fair, there were mild protests when US did it. And it was
| a truly big deal at the time since there was another government
| official involved IIRC.
| DangerousPie wrote:
| They did not do the same thing at all. Refusing permission for
| a state aircraft to transit your airspace is very different
| from forcing a civilian plane to land in your country under
| false pretences, in order to make a political arrest of a
| journalist.
| tomp wrote:
| It might be different to a lawyer, but in reality it's the
| same. Forcing a plane to land so you can search for / arrest
| someone. About the same as "theft" and "civil forfeiture" are
| different...
| DangerousPie wrote:
| The two big differences are that Belarus actually forced
| the plane to land (the Bolivian one could have just gone
| back) and that this was a plane full of civilian
| passengers, not a diplomatic jet.
| ac42 wrote:
| Vladimir!
| stelliosk wrote:
| Greece describes it as a 'state hijacking'.
|
| https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1161646/greek-foreign-mini...
| tpmx wrote:
| The president of the EU Commission does the same:
|
| https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1396566441370001413
|
| _The outrageous and illegal behaviour of the regime in Belarus
| will have consequences.
|
| Those responsible for the #Ryanair hijacking must be
| sanctioned.
|
| Journalist Roman Protasevich must be released immediately.
|
| EUCO will discuss tomorrow action to take._
| sbelskie wrote:
| An absolutely terrifying breach of international laws and norms.
| tgv wrote:
| I'm afraid it's simply a terribly crooked use of those.
| chki wrote:
| No, it's certainly not. If the bomb threat wasn't real (and I
| would definitely doubt that it was) that's a violation of the
| Convention on International Civil Aviation, Art. 5.
| jiofih wrote:
| Even if it was real, odds are it would've been planted for
| exactly the same purpose.
| djbebs wrote:
| Good thing Belarus isn't a signatory to that convention and
| therefore it does not apply to them.
|
| Their territory, their rules.
| detaro wrote:
| https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/List%20of%20Partie
| s/C...
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Even if it was real, the distance from destination was
| nearly the same as from Minsk. There was no reason to
| divert the plane.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Lukashenko was trying his best to protect Europe from
| evil bomb. Can't blame him.
| echoradio wrote:
| I would think launching fighter jets to force the landing of a
| passenger plane is considered an act of aggression. How will that
| play out with NATO, of which the origin/destination countries are
| a part of?
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| 10x the cost of flying over EU for russian planes so we can
| compensate nuclear b52's & f35's escorting EU planes over
| russia...
| kstenerud wrote:
| Usually it follows the four stage strategy:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
| rich_sasha wrote:
| In emergency situations it is totally normal to send fighter
| jets, less so as killing machines, more as agile planes with
| pilots skilled at close-quarter flying. The fighter pilots can
| assess the situation, guide the pilot (perhaps with a broken
| radio or other trouble?) down to safety. Or if it is hijacked
| and aimed at a nuclear plant, probably then shoot it down. This
| happens everywhere.
|
| Of course this is a very convenient coincidence here that a
| random emergency happens with a wanted man in board...
| nostromo wrote:
| Sure, but the context here is very different. It was a state-
| sponsored hijacking.
| adolph wrote:
| Intercept and escort is far less aggressive than missiles.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
|
| Not that the US was wrong to be on high alert:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
| avereveard wrote:
| >How will that play out with NATO
|
| they will send a strongly worded letter, no doubt about it
| belatw wrote:
| They will send Thoughts and Prayers.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| Not really a NATO issue, if you willingly enter another
| country, even it's airspace, you're agreeing to abide by their
| laws. Or, this this case, lack of laws. There's lots of things
| wrong with this, but NATO rules aren't in play.
| kensai wrote:
| That as well. They freaking sent a MiG-29 to accompany the
| plane with the fake excuse to find a "bomb"...
| stelliosk wrote:
| Greece describes it as a 'state hijacking'.
|
| https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1161646/greek-foreign-mini...
| krcz wrote:
| Polish prime minister calls it an "act of state terrorism":
| https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1396486258747183106
| shmerl wrote:
| New airspace piracy precedent. Gallows should be the proper
| ending for potato fuhrer who ordered this.
| senko wrote:
| This is not new.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| As a response, I'd like each plane flying over Belarus and Russia
| to be escorted by b52 and f35.
| maze-le wrote:
| Only about 40km from the border:
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2
|
| I wonder what would have happened if they just delayed until they
| were in lithuanian airspace.
|
| EDIT: just realized there were fighter jets involved...
| rjsw wrote:
| Why would NATO do anything about an aircraft from a neutral
| country ?
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Why would NATO do anything about an aircraft from a
| neutral country?_
|
| The aircraft's registration is SP-RSM, which is Polish:
|
| * https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_registration
| _...
|
| Poland is a member of NATO. Also, Lithuania and Greece, the
| source and destination of the flight, are also both in NATO.
| rjsw wrote:
| My point was that Ireland relies on being surrounded by
| NATO countries but doesn't contribute anything to the costs
| of protecting their own airspace. TBF, it is making noises
| about maybe getting some fast jets at some point.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > My point was that Ireland
|
| Ireland is not involved in this conversation. All
| elements are related to NATO countries.
|
| Even the airline, Buzz (aka Ryanair Sun), which is the
| legal owner of the aircraft, is headquartered in Poland:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_(Ryanair)
|
| *
| https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-800-sp-
| rsm...
| tyingq wrote:
| I assume a Ryanair flight would also have had a lot of
| citizens of NATO countries on-board. I wonder what would
| have happened if it were a US flagged carrier.
| pandem wrote:
| What is a neutral country? The flight started from Greece
| (NATO country) was going to Lithuania (NATO country) and the
| plane is registered in Poland (NATO country).
| [deleted]
| rjsw wrote:
| Ireland is a neutral country, it is the home of Ryanair.
| odiroot wrote:
| It's just a commercial operator of the airplane. That
| doesn't matter much in the international aviation laws.
| bombcar wrote:
| They could keep flying and force Belarus to shoot down a
| civilian airliner.
|
| Might be a good way to start a war.
| foepys wrote:
| I don't think that Ryanair pilots are involved in diplomacy
| and want to risk their lifes for a foreign country.
| bombcar wrote:
| Just tell them it's a marketing opportunity! "We're so
| cheap and dedicated to short flights that we ignore
| military jets trying to divert us!"
| raldi wrote:
| Can you post a screenshot? I'm not seeing any flight path when
| I go to that link.
| sva_ wrote:
| https://i.imgur.com/Ir9ucRM.png
| rock_artist wrote:
| I read of some Israeli's landing in Syria and Iran due to an
| emergency landing (eg. health emergency, plane malfunction).
|
| Similar to an embassy, the onboard territory is based on which
| country the aircraft is registered to.
|
| In the previous cases, the aircrew assured those people they're
| in charge of them.
|
| So this seems to be a diplomatic incident with Ireland?
|
| Two differences though. - low cost company, maybe aircrew are
| less knowledgeable. - bomb alert.
| throaway46546 wrote:
| Plane was registered in Poland.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| EU and NATO are too meek to answer this unprecedented act of
| state terrorism with something stronger than expressing their
| 'deep concern'.
|
| In turn, this will further embolden putin / lukashenko gang to
| bigger and more outrageous acts. This gang understands only
| force. Something like a rocket killing a top government official,
| or seizure of assets.
|
| (I say this as a Russian citizen who was recently detained by the
| police at an anti-Putin protest)
| odiroot wrote:
| The problem with both EU and NATO is that some of the members
| have no problems being friendly with these regimes/terrorist
| states. They make good partners in business.
| saba2008 wrote:
| >rocket killing
|
| Worst possible choice. Even without taking international costs,
| it will be best day for propaganda and thus elite. And perfect
| feed for ultra-nationalistic movements - so even if manages to
| produce change in government, it will be second Iran, not
| second Poland.
|
| >seizure of assets
|
| Best one. After enough mansions are seized and comfortable
| retirements destroyed, couple of skulls will get caved by a
| snuffbox and all the geopolitics garbage will be thrown out of
| the window. With following power struggle, that might even be
| second chance to form sane government.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > >rocket killing
|
| > Worst possible
|
| Reconsider this. This is a 1 man regime, possibly 2-3-4 men
| regime.
|
| Do you want to keep running after gazillions of their bank
| accounts in Switzerland, and hope they run out of money, or
| kill the man who holds passwords for, probably, at least half
| of money for the regime?
|
| And look at Norko... There are latest RolceRoyces on streets
| of Pyongyang.
| saba2008 wrote:
| >This is a 1 man regime, possibly 2-3-4 men regime.
|
| It is gross oversimplification. It's basically
| political/special service elite (bound with personal
| loyalty) and thick layer of rent seekers (from oil & gas
| billionaires to countless bureaucratic sinecures).
|
| Even if we assume that all power is indeed in hands of one
| person, who will gain power once he is killed and current
| system collapses? Ones who can act fast and are not
| hindered by too much reflection or morals: junta,
| blackshirts and organized crime.
|
| >run out of money
|
| No. Point is making desired behaviour more profitable than
| current behaviour for regime stakeholders. When risk coming
| from asset freeze becomes larger than risk from change in
| government - system will start to transform.
|
| >holds passwords
|
| That doesn't work that way. It's actually opposite - wealth
| is often spread among many loyal figureheads, with actual
| beneficiary holding nothing on his name.
|
| >Norko
|
| Russian regime is as far from classic totalitarian one as
| it is from european democracy. Probably even further, as
| it's basically democracy corrupted to the point of
| switching to new aggregate state.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > It is gross oversimplification
|
| It is not an oversimplification, it is how it is.
|
| When even secret police officers have to make a soup of
| their boots, it is.
|
| > When risk coming from asset freeze becomes larger than
| risk from change in government - system will start to
| transform.
|
| When the system will start to transform, he will get a
| bayonet in his pooper.
|
| > That doesn't work that way. It's actually opposite -
| wealth is often spread among many loyal figureheads, with
| actual beneficiary holding nothing on his name.
|
| This works this way. All corrupt heads of Ex-Union
| countries hold personal accounts on a very tight leash.
| Maybe with few figurehead titleholders, but not how you
| tell us.
|
| Internet banking has made things much simpler for them.
|
| > Probably even further, as it's basically democracy
| corrupted to the point of switching to new aggregate
| state.
|
| It is not a democracy, plainly and simple.
|
| If you think you have an "alternative vision," tell us
| how you will call this: https://gdb.rferl.org/47AAAE02-01
| C2-46FF-87F6-5607ECF3427C_w...
|
| No alternative "visions," and interpretations from high
| nosed "political scientists" needed.
|
| Call things their their names.
| saba2008 wrote:
| >even secret police officers have to make a soup of their
| boots
|
| So what are Usmanov, Prokhorov, Potanin, etc? Are they
| oppressed opposition, or are they eating boots too?
|
| >bayonet in his pooper
|
| While executions of government officials would be
| extremely entertaining and spirit raising sight, such
| revolutionary events will lead to much worse outcome in
| long term than reformation.
|
| >All corrupt heads of Ex-Union countries hold personal
| accounts on a very tight leash
|
| Ex-Union countries are very different. Claim that corrupt
| heads of 6M people/43G$ GDP Turkmenistan and 145M/4328G$
| Russia are identical is a strong one. Other than size of
| economy, they are different in that most of them became
| authoritarian states right after gaining independence,
| while Russia had about decade of mostly working
| democracy.
|
| >this
|
| Elections. Corrupted to the point of uselessness, but
| they are still run, as government derives it's legitimacy
| from them, rather than from leader's charisma or
| ideology.
|
| >Call things their their names
|
| Sometimes it makes sense to distinguish between kinds of
| shit. Especially if shit is only material you have.
| arodyginc wrote:
| Be careful with your wording if you still live there, or want
| to fly over there, lol
| altcognito wrote:
| And you can see with open eyes that every top thread in this
| discussion is redirecting everyones attention to Snowden as if
| it's an excuse or even a comparable situation. Authoritarians
| have good propaganda engines.
|
| If Democracy is to survive, we have to do better analysis.
| cmehdy wrote:
| You're right that increasingly often the EU is not making a
| clear enough stance about what it supposedly believes in, and
| this isn't about trying to act tough but to show some
| determination to exist around the ideals of its creation.
|
| If this event doesn't lead to something significant, it would
| once more fail at points 2,3,5, and 6 of its core values[0]. As
| a EU citizen I'm hoping for the long-term success of the EU but
| not always very confident in it..
|
| All the best to you, particularly courage and luck in the face
| of what you have to deal with locally..
|
| [0] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
| john_doesky wrote:
| >rocket killing
|
| Yeah, let's start a war.
|
| >seizure of assets
|
| Sure, let's endorse state-sanctioned robbery.
| baybal2 wrote:
| FYI: Flight manifests are pretty much public data today.
|
| Databases of every person flying internationally with passport
| numbers in last 10 years, or so years go around on onion
| websites.
|
| Thank your "antiterrorism" STAZI, and its well wishers.
| jll29 wrote:
| Understandably, people focus about the air maneuvre aspect of
| this story first.
|
| But if you put that aside for a moment and look at things from a
| higher level perspective: the president of a whole country is SO
| AFRAID OF A SINGLE YOUNG BLOGGER that he redirects a whole plane,
| thereby doing a "full Barbara"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect).
|
| Never say one person cannot change the world!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Its not the Streisand effect when you are trying to very
| publicly establish that you will inflict harsh consequences on
| people doing what the target has done.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| This is the "Kill the chicken to scare the monkey" effect.
|
| It might be concurrent with the Streisand effect, but it is
| usually fairly painful for the target.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_.
| ..
| ilyich wrote:
| Long live Belarus! Congratulations to Mr Lukashenko and all
| belorussian people in general on capturing another traitor on CIA
| payroll whose goal is turning Belarus into another European
| banana republic like the rest of most ex-eastern block countries.
| Kirdyk skoro vashei Amerike!!!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-23 23:01 UTC)