I want to start by saying I'm not sure Air France should be subsidized to the level we do. Its workers rules from the 80s are just not adapted anymore and protecting them with public money against normal competition is stupid. And I don't mean when compared to oil-funded middle east airlines (which are eating everyone's lunch in europe on an unfair basis), but compared with others EU airlines. KLM is being abused to pay for Air France's bills, for exemple, that's just wrong. They tried to push into low cost workers stopped it, they tried to keep competitive with high cost workers complained, it's stupid and weird. It has giant potential but we're ruining it.
With that said, Russia trying to punch our national carrier down means they guarantee we won't let Air France hurt too much. Why would Russia try to play the economic game against a country so much richer than it is a question I can't answer. Probably because we don't depend on their oil nor gaz and since that's virtually the only thing they do they don't have any thing else than their giant airspace to get back at us ...
All of that to say: Air France stock holders are probably happy at that news.
They may be trying to signal they're willing to cut of their nose to spite their face in order to dissuade France from pushing for deeper sanctions if the Belarus situation further deteriorates.
Mmm, I have much the same misgivings about the likes of EDF being allowed to go on spending sprees in other countres - including my own, Britain - when they are mostly owned by the French state.
At the less knuckle-dragging end of the Brexit voting spectrum, stuff like this showed a clear two-tier level of behaviour in the EU and was hard to rationalise in the minds of people somewhat on the fence.
I know that I - as a Remain voter - had an on-going irritation at the situation. Samesame huge state/EU loans to the likes of Spain's Ferrovial to go on spending sprees here too.
Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour as our continental cousins were, our industrial Brexit-supporters (Dyson et al) might not have felt they were being so unduly hard done by.
> Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour as our continental cousins were, our industrial Brexit-supporters (Dyson et al) might not have felt they were being so unduly hard done by.
The British finance industry made out by bandits by having the best of EU, UK and worldwide financial markets. UK kept a much tighter control of its currency than mainland EU countries, and did pressure _constantly_ to get EU rulings in its favor.
Yes, I know - we played the game within the constraints of the rules available, for better or worse as far as the development of the Community was concerned. Our political overlords have played that game forever, particularly since the UK rebate.
Strangely, that rebate was mostly because of antagonism about French support for its food industries... .
That we've still not had a resolution to our financial market's future engagement with the EU shows how fundamentally [expletive]-ing stupid and utterly short-sighted Brexit was. Idiots, all.
I'd rather we threw whatever guaranteeing stake the UK government owes into supporting Hinkcley instead to the likes of Rolls Royce and modular small-scale nuclear, which seems to me a better use of fission nuclear in the [hopeful] interim between now and fusion hopefully becoming A Thing in a decade (or five).
Heck, given how much money the current administration's spunked, we could just add some more zeroes to the deficit and double up... .
But yes, you're not wrong :)
- ed - the loss of the British Nuclear industry's one of the last generation's stupidest mess-ups.
> Mmm, I have much the same misgivings about the likes of EDF being allowed to go on spending sprees in other countres - including my own, Britain - when they are mostly owned by the French state.
This was a UK political choice, this could have been manage differently by UK government.
> Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour
UK is the country that has mangle EU rules the most.
> UK is the country that has mangle EU rules the most.
Can you explain what you mean by this? To me, it's always seemed that Germany and France benefit most from EU integration at the expense of the southern nations which have less industrialized export economies. I'm American, but my two cofounders are British and Swiss, so European politics is a pretty common topic of discussion.
What you say is true, but I think the point was that the UK has consistently cherry picked rules and developments coming from the EU, while also benefiting from the EU integration.
Germany and France differ somewhat in that the EU structurally benefits them. However, they also participate in all mechanisms and, as a consequence, pay a lot of money toward other member states.
The UK, by contrast, has tried to minimize obligations while trying to keep some benefits intact.
Allegedly because they get subsidies from the oil states. I personally do not know if above is true. Maybe they are just more effective not having to coordinate every move with unions and not having extra costs due to some stupid political moves. Maybe both. Maybe none...
>Such a weird move. [...] Russia trying to punch our national carrier down
It doesn't seem weird if Russia has a history of using its valuable airspace as a geopolitical weapon. (A 10 min video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U)
France's Macron was vocal about EU issuing sanctions against Belarus. Putin supports Belarus and in a tit-for-tat show, they denied Russia clearance to Air France flights. The motivations for economic punishments from both sides seem obvious.
> Its workers rules from the 80s are just not adapted anymore
I once spoke with an Air France flight attendant on a domestic flight (Paris => Rennes) and she told me that her employment contract was governed by Irish law. She was French.
I don't know if this is representative of all the flight staff status.
But for me it is a bit weird that a French company, owned by the French state, employs French people under an Irish status.
The parent company of Air France is AirFrance-KLM which is a publicly traded company. France and the Netherlands are the largest shareholders and hold about 14 and 12 % of the stock each. So it is probably not correct to identify Air France as a company owned by the French State.
As a publicly traded company they are to some extent required to choose employment options that are financially beneficial, I would guess that's happening here.
Would also think a big enough airline may have staff based in other countries. Being Air France staff based in Dublin wouldn’t let you fill many hours if you could only work on journey between Ireland and france.
There’s probably some union rules restricting them from working exclusively outside of the country they’re based.
That became quite common, also for pilots. Apparently these jobs became so sought after that non-flag carriers, RyanAir being among the main offenders apparently, have their co-pilots pay to get the flight hours to keep their license. Gone are the days of lofty, high paid airline jobs. Even gone are the days you don't have to pay for pilot training, let alone being paid as airline trainee.
> I want to start by saying I'm not sure Air France should be subsidized to the level we do.
This is the point. It's pork barrel of a flag carrier being under a gunpoint. The message is "I will not let even your most overpriced, over-subsidised, bathing in cash airline to make money"
I'm not sure if the idea above makes sense to somebody in American cultural context.
> Probably because we don't depend on their oil nor gaz and since that's virtually the only thing they do they don't have any thing else than their giant airspace to get back at us.
I don’t want to miss my dear JetBrains products ;)
To elaborate, quoting Forbes, JetBrains has some links back to Russia. Shafirov is Russian, as are its three cofounders: Sergey Dmitriev, Eugene Belyaev and Valentin Kipiatkov. Three of its six research and development centers are also based in Russia, alongside its bases in Germany, the Netherlands, the U.S. and the Czech Republic.
US is "so much richer" than Russia. China is "so much richer" than Russia.
France is not "so much richer" than Russia. You chop 40% of France's GDP and that's the GDP of Russia. Sure that's bigger but then Russia has 2x the amount of people and... 30x the country size. 30x.
I have absolutely zero doubts that Russia is going to overtake France's GDP in a not so distant future.
Since losing the Waterloo battle France went from world's 1st superpower (debatable) to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th (in the eighties and maybe still in the nineties?), then 6th and now 7th. And the path seems pretty clear to me.
(I'm not russian btw and I don't approve what Russia is doing here but I know how "cocorico" french people can be and I wouldn't want others to be mislead so I simply present facts: chop 40% of France's GDP and you've got Russia's GDP. Russia has 2x the population and 30x the land of France)
Seems like bureaucratic symbolism. I can't imagine there are many people who want to avoid being nabbed in Belarus but would still feel comfortable traveling to Russia.
More like a tit-for-tat show of support for Belarus on the part of the Russians.
I saw a televised meeting between Putin and Lukashenko yesterday that ended with Lukashenko making the statement that went something like "the Bolsheviks rose to great heights, and we will match them", to which Putin chuckled, demurely. Its maybe not obvious to Westerners, but they are trying to rebuild a "Union of ex-Soviet States" in the region these days .. one by one, preparing a Bloc that can be an attractive partner to the EU, I suppose.
With these kinds of tit-for-tat responses, though, I guess its a shrewd strategy. "If we are allowed into the EU econo-bloc, such re-routes won't be necessary", seems to be the planned negotiating point ..
First of all, I do not see any indication that Russia or Belarus tries to get closer to the EU, rather the opposite. And this kind of blocking policy increases the separation.
Also, it takes really a lot to have the EU make any decision within short notice, but Lukashenko definitely managed.
>First of all, I do not see any indication that Russia or Belarus tries to get closer to the EU, rather the opposite.
Putin has stated multiple times that he intends to have better relations with the EU, and that the Commonwealth of Independent States needs to work towards that goal, so .. I'm guessing you're not paying attention to that, since it doesn't serve the narrative that Russia just wants to 'go it alone against the world'.
No, it wouldn't be good for the USA, but it would be great for Europeans and Russians to see this happen some day.
Russia would be a perfectly fine partner with the EU, and it seems to be orienting towards that goal in a future date - American agitprop notwithstanding.
If Putin wants to have better relations with the EU, he is very welcome. He just should stop with certain things which are kind of incompatible with that. Like odering murders on EU territory, and keep his fingers out of the Ukraine. Oh, yes, if he has any influence with Lukashenko, he might tell him about not threatening European airplanes.
All well and good, but the EU (and especially now the UK) is in no position to be dictating moral platitudes from some position of authority, that is for sure - especially on the issue of the repression of journalists, extrajudicial murder/assassinations launched from EU/UK territory, and so on.
It takes a certain kind of disingenuous authoritarianism to claim that Russia is committing heinous acts which preclude its participation in the world order, when the majority of the world order is just fine with crimes against humanity, war crimes, and extrajudicial assassinations being performed for the criminal purposes of the "Coalition of the Willing".
They only have control on flights in and out of Russia though so how much leverage can it really provide? All the EU airlines can just say sure we will fly over Belarus on the way to Moscow while still avoiding it on every other city pair that doesn't involve a Russian destination. That is why I say it seems largely symbolic.
Why would any European airline fly over Belarus while the incident isn't resolved? No airline should fly over states which intercepts civil airliners in transit.
My understanding is that you can intercept a plane in transit in your airspace. The problem is that Belarus lied when they said they had information of a bomb onboard.
Another problem is the kidnapping of a passenger who then got promptly very sick and damaged in the friendly heavy hands of the KGB and police. You know, the usual thing the totalitarians do.
Eh, how is Assange doing? People are being treated well in Guantanamo? Didn't Austria divert a flight on merely the suspicion that Snowden might be onboard? Or does that not count because it was just the President of Bolivia's official government jet and not a Ryanair flight?
Fair enough if you want to criticize Russia for being a kleptocracy that assassinates enemies on foreign soil, but diversion of flights to capture enemies of the state and then not treating them well in captivity is unfortunately not a hallmark of totalitarian regimes but a general feature of western statecraft as well, so let's not blow this tit-for-tat response out of proportion.
How about, don't be so eager to rush to judgement of other nations, when your nation (UK/USA) clearly has extant history with the same kinds of issues.
Yes, Russia, like any other state, could intercept airplanes too. But so far, they have not. International air travel means, that you have to fly across many countries, if you want to fly in a somewhat straight line. There are a few exceptions, where flights are not permitted to cross a countries airspace, but intercepting approved flights is pretty much unheard of. That is why the actions from Lukashenko created so much outrage. It is one of the fundamental agreements of international flights that got violated. If Russia would start intercepting airplanes, they would be internationally isolated quite quickly.
Isn't that great? We're not going to allow non-democratic countries like Russia into the EU. Certainly not when they are so clearly documenting that they have zero credibility, no treaty Russia signs can be trusted.
So it's probably fine that they make own club.
This whole development surrounding the diversion of a Ryanair flight to Minsk is interesting as it shows clearly how two nation states are trying out to see what they can get away with.
Why create a billions of dollars worth investment ruin when we can also complete it and go the "stick and carrots" route? Let it sit but demand concessions from Putin. He wants to sell the gas, after all...
So anything goes as long as Germany comes first? And really, is it in Germany's interests to support dictatorships as the wave of illiberalism rolls further west? How exactly?
Germany and it's neo empire, AKA EU, is spineless and pathetic and deserves to die the slow death it is facing while China and Russia crushes the last hope and light left in the world. Germany just can't help itself, time and again making the world a worse place. Germans truly learnt nothing, disingenuously saying "never again" while gladhanding with a authoritarian power openly engaging in genocide: https://neveragainrightnow.com/
How will the US make up for that oil? Not through internal drilling and extraction as the environmental wing of the party in power would never allow it. Closer ties to Middle Eastern states that have their own terrible human rights abuses?
A European plane with European passengers was downed. No Americans. Putin would not have signed off on a similar operation with an American plane.
U.S. geopolitical focus is presently in the Pacific. Getting sidetracked with whatever is going on between Berlin and Moscow doesn’t serve our interests.
I think that would be a shot at the bow. A shot across the bow would be to maybe stop buying gas from Russia for a week or two during the summer. I have no clue how much that would cost, but I have started to think that it might make sense also as an supply chain disruption exercise.
Germany has never had nuclear weapons of its own, though the US has had around 60 warheads in Buchel (edit: and currently probably has about about 20 warheads) as part of the NATO Nuclear Sharing deterrent, and the Soviet Union deployed some nuclear warheads in East Germany for a time.
Edit: maybe thousands of warheads were in Germany at the height of the cold war, though a quick look through Wikipedia isn't clear about the peak number of warheads.
Thanks. I know a guy who was trained to place demolition charges on the US warheads in Buchel in case the base was overrun, and I had gotten the false impression from him that all of the warheads had since been removed.
They could import it from US. Not sure how much more expensive that would be, especially since Russia has a strong reason to have a very competitive price (since supplying EU is also a strategic asset)
Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder oversaw the shutdown of Germany's nuclear industry. He is now chairman of the Russian gas conglomerate Rosneft.
The shutdown of Germany's nukes is a result of corruption at the most senior level, and represents one of the greatest betrayals of the German people, of Europe, and of indeed the planet given the additional emissions.
If the EU is really serious about Russian and energy independence, they should be begin a mass program of nuclear power building across the bloc.
But its more likely that all of the senior European bureaucrats and politicians are corrupted at some level.
If you explained to those same people that the replacement is going to involve a lot of coal and Russian gas, and that the decision was based on a corrupted chancellor, would they still support the decision?
If the chancellor was corrupted, then what about senior media controllers and leaders of the Greens movement?
Germans know very well, that Schröder was corrupt. They still support the Energiewende. But Trump bullying Germany to stop buying Russian gas, so the US can sell its more expensive fracking gas to Europe isn't a perfect signal of sincerity either.
I think the response would have been more prompt, and a lot harder for people to ignore.
Tourism in Belarus would disappear instantly..
Note. when Russia* shot down a commerical jet over Ukraine, it probably was a mistake. At-least the opposite is far fetch we're willing to believe it wasn't intentional.
* We can also say pro-russian separatists, but they are probably one and the same.
This is not an unexpected move. In Russia, we even have an established phrase that refers to the common situation of hurting own citizens under the pretext of imposing sanctions on foreign powers
Out of curiosity - what is this phrase? "Ни себе, ни людям" - (lit: "Not for one self, not for the people"), "Собака на сене" ("Dog on the hay"), "Напугали ежа голой задницей" ("Scare the hedgehog with the bare butt") or is it something more specific to the situation?
No, withhold means to "not give". It has the connotation, often, of not giving something that is due or expected or customary-- which also fits the bill here.
What does Putin get out of this? I feel like such a strong show of support for Lukashenko on this issue (above the existing general level of support) probably has some pretty significant strings attached.
He gets to force the EU to walk back on the restrictions imposed on Belarus. Russia’s interest is to stop the EU from advancing (in any form) over Eastern Europe.
Good point about resisting EU control of Eastern Europe, although this doesn't seem like the optimal way to do that. Maybe this is step one, then step two is to cut a deal that imposes some limits on Belarus' actions but puts Russia in the control seat of negotiations etc.
If Russia's goal is to stop Eastern Europe to become unfriendly, then they already fail, since most of countries that Russia themselves consider "unfriendly" are already in that region -- Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Czech (in addition to the US and UK)
In general, Putin seems to be willing to invest on the side of any strongman, to support their ultimate right to take any action to put down their opposition.
My guess us that for the Russian citizens, Putin wants to show that: 1) Lukashenko is the good guy fighting terrorists, 2) EU politicians have mistreated Belavia Belarusian airlines, so Russia had to step in and defend their allies, 3) generally trying to show that he is more powerful than EU politicians.
In terms of actual long-term goals, I think, he aims to replace Lukashenko with a new pro-Russia president, so he tries to keep Lukashenko happy in the process (also making him more dependent on Russia internationally), and proving that the two countries are still best allies...
Lukashenko is generally derided for “sitting on two chairs” playing Europe against Russia (while acknowledging his impressive ability to do so for so many years). He also carried the country through the post-Soviet trouble period much better than most other former republics, for which he gets some respect.
Note that he has firmly purged the government of pro-Russian politicians over the years so there are no illusions about his friendship.
Russians are different. For many Lukashenko's Belarus was their soviet dream, carefully conserved and preserved. For many Lukashenko is dictator along with Putin. Some Russians don't even understand why Belarus is not in the Russia and will welcome every move to unite those countries.
I don't think that there's a singular view to Belarus.
There has been lots of hypothetical talk about potential re-merging of Russia and Belarus into a single polity (they were practically single state during Soviet Union).
This week has been win/win/win for Putin and Lukashenko. The EU cutting ties with Belarus pushes the Belarussian people further into Russia's arms. Lukashenko got to cast terror into the heart of the opposition movement.
Russia needs the countries on its European border. It is completely exposed militarily - flat lands leading all the way to its heartland routinely used by invaders. It already has two NATO countries on its border and another country (Ukraine) that has asked to join. The last thing it needs is a wall of NATO countries pressed up against its jugular.
Completely exposed to who? The US? Germany? Lithuania? Who exactly is going to take advantage of this terrain and drive an army into Russia?
Nobody, that's who.
I'll tell you what Putin's really afraid of. He's afraid of Russians figuring out that the people in the USSR who wound up aligned with the west are better off than the people who are under Putin. He's afraid of that reality creeping too close to his borders.
(Now, in fairness, it was absolutely absurd that France would invade Russia... until it happened. But if Putin wants buffers big enough to prevent that from happening, then he's going to need to control both Germany and France. There are no buffers big enough to disarm Russia's fears, unless you give them at least all of Europe. And maybe you'd have to give them the whole planet.)
I asked who's going to take advantage (militarily, in context) of this level terrain leading into Russia, and you say "NATO". And then you say that NATO isn't an invading force. So what, exactly, are you saying? Seems like you're back at my answer of "nobody is going to invade".
Ah, I see. You could also add Kosovo, if you chose.
Still, my point stands: Is NATO going to invade Russia, using that favorable geography? No. Absolutely not. Zero chance. No NATO country has the stomach for a war of mass casualties, and nobody is stupid enough to think that an invasion of Russia would be anything else.
(The good news is that, after Afghanistan, I don't think that Russia has the stomach for a war of mass casualties, either, and Putin knows it. So he plays games with "little green men" and the Wagner Group, but I don't think he can go much further than that. China concerns me more - I fear that at the moment, maybe they do have the stomach for it, and the temptation to try because they doubt that anyone else has the will to fight enough to give China that kind of casualties.)
Isn’t it the US that constantly invades and occupies countries, not the other way around? It’s the US I fear, it already has bases all over my country.
Zero chance right now, yep. Russia is way too powerful militarily. If Lukashenko is overthrown and Belarus flips to the West, though, NATO will start to threaten Kaliningrad next. Maybe the Baltic Republican Party will get another truckload of cash out of nowhere and start giving interviews on CNN.
The whole point of the ratchet games in Eastern Europe is to make it incrementally easier until it becomes a more realistic plan. NATO probably won't have a problem edging further towards Moscow for 70 more years and Moscow will try to stymie them every step of the way.
Once it becomes realistic and winnable there's a good chance they won't need to fight. Russia would likely flip to becoming a client state of the US of its own accord. That is likely the NATO endgame - a series of puppets like Yeltsin in power for good with the labor/natural resource markets opened up for exploitation to American megacorporations, no significant industrial base of its own and a very limited military capacity.
Yeah... um... remind me who, occupies half of Georgia? Who took over part of Ukraine? It wasn't NATO.
How soon do you think Russia is going to leave the Ukraine? Ever? Are they going to take more if they get the chance? Hard to prove, but it seems likely.
The fall of Shervadnadze, the Rose Revolution and pro-NATO Sakaashvili's rise to power was precipitated by west.
That all happened before the Russian/Georgian war. It followed a similar pattern to many other post Soviet Republics as well as a lot of Latin America.
Russia will leave Ukraine alone if there is somebody friendly to them in power. If not then probably not.
It doesn't no, which underscores the importance of favorable geography to successful military action even when you hold overwhelming military power.
Afghanistan was poor and the government was militarily weak, though, which I guess is why the US figured they could execute a successful military invasion in spite of the geographical unfavorability.
Osama was definitely on to something when he baited the US into a war there. He said the war would be protracted, costly, deadly and unwinnable. $2.5 trillion down the drain and 4,000 deaths later and nothing to show for it - he was right.
Whether it was a right decision or not, NATO only invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 which was considered an attack onto a member state. This was done purely to fight the terrorist regime and never as a permanent occupation. And NATO is currently leaving Afghanistan completely - after which of course the Taliban are going back to their old ways, which of course are also bad for the population.
That the NATO would invade Russia is a bizarre idea. They simply have no incentive, and even if they had any interest, they are lacking the troops and Russia is a nuclear power. If it were not, the west would probably have engaged more forcefully in Ukraine, especially as they had signed contracts to do so when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.
Seriously? NATO's entire existence was borne out of a desire to lock horns with Moscow.
They didn't supply troops to Ukraine cos they don't want a direct fight with another nuclear power. This was a defining feature of the cold war. That's why it was called "cold". What makes you think this time is different?
It's much lower risk and much cheaper to play the long game and stir up ethnic tensions along exposed borders and foment ethnic and cultural splits. This being famously effective at building and sustaining the British Empire and also something Russia is trying to do to the US with social media, although with limited success beyond sparking thanksgiving arguments.
A nice term you are using, "lock horns". Nicely vague, says anything or nothing. Yes, the NATO was founded as a counterpart to the expanding Sovjet Union. Which was not a democratic state but had a de-factor dictator in control and prevented independent democracies in the states of the Warshaw Pact. Whereever there were democratic movements in those states, they even sent troups to help swish them. They also had a huge amount (many thousands) of battle tanks ready at the western border of the Warshaw Pact region. Whereas the NATO only had a much smaller tank force ready. So there was never the risk of a conventional attack of the NATO against the Warshaw Pact region.
You are right, the NATO didn't support the Ukraine with military equipment or even troups, despite of the treaty, because of the fear of things going nuclear. That is also the reason any allegations about the NATO attacking Russia is pure sillyness.
The only "danger" for Russia, or rather Putin, is, that more and more countries want to be independant, especially for improving economic ties to the west, as this brings economic prosperity. It is tragic, how the enourmeous wealth of Russia, thanks to its oil and gas, was wasted for fancy yachts instead of boosting the industrial upbuild of the country.
So to clarify: Belarus forced a plane to land, the French try to respect the autonomy of both, now they're banning flights?
I had half joked I wanted to take the Moscow -> Bejing train at some point , but I guess I'll reasses (my IRL contacts know how much I absolutely LOVE trains), but shit like this makes me inclined to keep spending that money on overpriced coffee or whatever.
I looked at the data[1], and Russia made ~11 billion dollars from tourism in 2015, so they must really value being petty since reading these things make them sound unwelcoming, unfriendly, and straight up antisocial.
> The French airline, part of the broader Air France-KLM group, was forced to cancel two Paris-Moscow flights last week after receiving no Russian clearance for flight plans skirting the territory.
> Obstacles to rerouted Air France flights appeared to have been resolved late last week, allowing Air France to carry out two weekend Paris-Moscow services.
Sounds like Russian Authorities just took an extra beat (maliciously, or incompetently), or maybe the initial requested plan came too close to some military facility that the Russians had an alteration request over.
Either way, the wire services immediately smelled news even though by the time it was ready to publish, the issue was already resolved... so what's the news here?
edit: I apologize for my snark. I responded to you because you were the top comment. But it seems like that NONE of the other commenters read the article either. Apalling.
edit2: Keeping all my original content above for posterity but clearly I was wrong - jasode below clarified things.
Are there not other bad actor(s) mostly aligned with Putin who could start buying u all their oil if say a war broke out, or are we passed that type of war needing so much such natural resources, or perhaps those countries have enough oil reserves/production already?
This is just a guess, but the former Soviet union countries that potentially would re-align with Russia aren't huge countries with big oil appetites. They likely don't have the means to start buying up billions of dollars in Russian oil.
Sadly, the criminal gang that runs Russia is not interested in the economic prosperity of its citizens. They want ordinary people to stay poor and isolated since this makes them so much easier to control. They fully understand (and welcome) the consequences of their actions.
Can you shed some more light on this? Russia has been an accounting game since the fall of the soviet union: underpriced shares, diverted revenue/dividend to insiders, lucrative resource or revenue generating assets sold opaquely and also underpriced
Does this end at some point? Where there are no more formerly state owned resources to pillage and convert to Euros/CHF/USD?
> Russia has been an accounting game since the fall of the soviet union
Again, the argument is that it does not matter. As long as the people in power are well compensated the general wellbeing of federation is of little consequence.
It is pretty simple. People who barely scrape by have no time, resources or focus to be fighting. They can't have too much or too little.
I always wonder what's the endgame for Russia. In terms of national GDP, it's sitting between Canada and South Korea. Can you imagine Canada hoarding nukes and sending troops for "vacation"? I don't think Canada could afford to, even if they wanted to (which, thankfully, they don't).
...Is Russia slowly bankrupting itself by pretending to be its former self?
It's trying to protect its western border. There are no mountains there. It's flat terrain leading right up to their heartland that has been invaded multiple times throughout history. The vulnerability they feel on this border is so intense it has shaped the national psyche.
Two countries (Latvia and Estonia) have already flipped to the west (NATO members). Ukraine is torn between Russia and the west (that's what Maidan morphed into after starting off as an anti corruption protest). Lukashenko was engaged in a struggle with pro western opponents.
There's a proxy war going on on its borders. I don't think this is about Russia trying to dominate the world. I think it's about Russia wanting to buffer its most exposed border.
If Western Canada joined in an alliance with Russia and Eastern Canada was run by a pro American dictator do you think America would behave differently?
Given all the shenanigans Russia has been involved in in the past, say, 10 years on their Western borders, I think it has been far too offensive and controversial to “just” be about defense and protecting its border. It’s an offensive game, such as what happened with the Crimea.
I understand what you're thinking and I suspect you're correct. What I find baffling is that they feel they need to "protect" they're border at all. From whom? For why? Are the Germans going to suddenly roll their tanks towards the Urals? As a mindset it seems so... 1910.
They're trying to edge the balance of power in the region to their favor. The US is doing the opposite. It's a slow ratchet effect that's been going on since the 1950s.
If they gave up entirely on their foreign policy objectives a more likely scenario than tanks would be the Russian State ending up a fragmented, powerless mess.
I don't imagine a US led NATO coalition immediately rolling tanks into Moscow if all 5 countries flip to NATO, but stirring up a separatist movement on the borders of Belarus or Ukraine and then "helping" out? Definitely.
I don't for one second believe that the US will instantly grind to a halt after creeping up on the Russian border for 70 years.
Creeping up to their border? Yeah, let's look at how that actually happened.
As soon as Poland had a chance, they wanted into the EU or NATO, preferably both. They, Poland, desperately wanted in. Why? Because they wanted protection from Russia, and with good historical reason.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Same story. It wasn't that the US had a nefarious plot to ensnare the border countries in a US-dominated alliance. They desperately wanted in, because they have experience with being overrun by Russia.
If Russia doesn't like this, maybe they should work on making their neighbors not feel so afraid of Russia. Things like the Ukraine and Georgia? They are not helping.
Well, I doubt the Winter War is covered much in Russian secondary school. "You're going to Finland" probably doesn't cause Simo Hayha[0] to visit Russian soldiers in their nightmares.
>It wasn't that the US had a nefarious plot to ensnare the border countries in a US-dominated alliance. They desperately wanted in
The US didn't admit them to NATO because of the volume of their begging. It admitted them because it let them put military bases right on the border of its geopolitical rival.
Similarly when Cuba begged the Soviet Union for nukes a year after a failed US invasion attempt, the Soviet Union didn't put them there just because it was felt sorry for them.
In both cases the countries were legitimately seeking protection from invasion though.
I'm not really sure if it's practical for Russia to try and make its neighbors "feel safe enough to quit NATO". In all likelihood any overtures would be treated as a sign of weakness. But, maybe you have ideas about practical steps Russia could take that would convince Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia to quit NATO. I'd be curious if you did.
Yes, there was a US invasion attempt into Cuba. A long time ago. There is zero risk for any invasion into Russia. Yes, the US likes to spread their influence and likes to have military bases around the world, but even interest in that is reduced. As soon as there is no one to protect against, those bases mostly lose their importance. The only state in recent history expanding their territory was Russia.
The idea of Germany rolling their tanks towards the Urals is really mind boggling. We have about 200 operational battle tanks left, not exactly a threat for anyone.
And the German reunion was mind-boggling expansive. Probably in the range of 1-2 trillion dollars. There is certainly no incentive whatsoever to attack other states for territory.
If anything, in a far future some more eastern states might apply for EU membership, but with the current state of things even that isn't overly likely and would happen in an absolutely peaceful manner.
Russian wages are MUCH lower than they are in Canada or South Korea. Average salary is something like ~500 USD per month, while in Canada it is closer to 5000 USD, so it is a way cheaper to operate nukes and send troops everywhere for Russia.
And if you think that nuclear engineers are making significantly more than an average Ivan, then I have a bad news for you, that's unlikely. For example, a friend of mine works for a subcontractor of Roscosmos (Russian space activities corporation, basically russian "NASA") as an electronic measurements instrumentation engineer and makes 60000 rubles per month before taxes (roughly 850$ per month). That's a joke of a salary and he is only able to work there because he is owning a property in Moscow.
If they really liked tourism, they would give tourist visas on arrival like all the other tourist loving countries, not make you go through a visa application song and dance.
Most western countries can actually visit without getting a visa in your passport beforehand.
The US and the UK also benefit a lot from tourism, and yet they have an extremely hostile border control system + an extremely onerous visa application process (I got a Russian visa a few times... It's definitely simpler)
Doing this creates an inconvenience for Europe.
The Russians like it when Europe has inconveniences.
It also (in)directly shows support for Belarus, forcing the dictator of that country to become even more reliant on Russia/Putin than he already was, and European sanctions play into this.
This way Belarus continues to be a buffer state between the EU and Russia, maintaining the status quo in that region for now.
It is a low-risk move for Russia, while having the potential to pay-off in the future should Belarus ever need any favors.
As long as there's no official stance from Russia, I would consider those cancels to be caused by technical issues. Probably it's not that easy to re-route many flights very quickly.
Russia has been getting away with far too much for far too long on the international stage. Putin is out of control. The rest of the world should extract their people and ban all flights in/out of Russia.
Russia has too much delicious raw materials - oil, gas and minerals. Now, for a country that does not export anything the world economy requires, it is simple to close it off, like Cuba. If Cuba produced oil and minerals it would not be so isolated. Nobody wants to stop trading with Russia.
So there is the global economic game, and then there is the global political game. All we ever talk about in media is the political game since it's easy to digest in sound bites, but the economics are running the real decision process as much as the politics.
"According to Bolivia, the flight 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".
The narrative is "that was different and totally valid course of action while we must now keep pointing fingers at Belarus look at how bad they are" and "disregard that Spain apologized to Bolivia".
Russian and Belarusian propagandists like to disseminate superficially similar comparisons like this in order to distract people from their own malfeasance.
One big difference is that RyanAir was a commercial flight, and it's covered by the International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA), which protects the right to fly over a country's airspace in order to travel between two other countries. Evo Morales plane, on the other hand, belongs to Bolivian Air Force[0]. IASTA applies only to civil aviation (RyanAir), not to military flights (Evo Morales).
Second difference is that France and Italy denied that military flight the right to enter their airspace, which is entirely in their right. Iran and North Korea can similarly deny Biden the right to pass over them in Air Force One. Belarus, on the other hand, waited till RyanAir aircraft was 30 minutes in their airspace, and then — instead of asking it to leave it asap — forced it to land by sending a fighter jet.
Third difference is that in Evo Morales case, nobody used a (clearly fake) bomb threat.
So no, people do remember that. These are two cases that are superficially similar, but very different in practice.
> Please don't call people "Russian and Belarusian propagandists"
I didn't call anyone that; I've just pointed out that this is the argument these propagandists make. To be clear, I'm not calling you "Russian and Belarusian propagandist" either, I'm just pointing out you and them make the same arguments.
> they seem like technical legal details
But legal details is all that matters. If two guys sleep with the same girl, one a day before her 18th birthday, the other one day after, the acts may be similar — however, because of "technical legal details", one of these acts has no consequences, while the other is a statutory rape and may lead to imprisonment.
Ethically though both are the same act, this is the point. A lawyer might say "well achually" but that by itself does not make the western actions any better morally although it might give them a justification to pat themselves in the back.
"Appeal to hypocrisy" is the other name of tu quoque fallacy:
Tu quoque, or _the appeal to hypocrisy_, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s).
196 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 283 ms ] threadI want to start by saying I'm not sure Air France should be subsidized to the level we do. Its workers rules from the 80s are just not adapted anymore and protecting them with public money against normal competition is stupid. And I don't mean when compared to oil-funded middle east airlines (which are eating everyone's lunch in europe on an unfair basis), but compared with others EU airlines. KLM is being abused to pay for Air France's bills, for exemple, that's just wrong. They tried to push into low cost workers stopped it, they tried to keep competitive with high cost workers complained, it's stupid and weird. It has giant potential but we're ruining it.
With that said, Russia trying to punch our national carrier down means they guarantee we won't let Air France hurt too much. Why would Russia try to play the economic game against a country so much richer than it is a question I can't answer. Probably because we don't depend on their oil nor gaz and since that's virtually the only thing they do they don't have any thing else than their giant airspace to get back at us ...
All of that to say: Air France stock holders are probably happy at that news.
"which didn't get clearance"
not this part:
"so they don't fly"
At the less knuckle-dragging end of the Brexit voting spectrum, stuff like this showed a clear two-tier level of behaviour in the EU and was hard to rationalise in the minds of people somewhat on the fence.
I know that I - as a Remain voter - had an on-going irritation at the situation. Samesame huge state/EU loans to the likes of Spain's Ferrovial to go on spending sprees here too.
Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour as our continental cousins were, our industrial Brexit-supporters (Dyson et al) might not have felt they were being so unduly hard done by.
Oh well, it matters not any more.
The British finance industry made out by bandits by having the best of EU, UK and worldwide financial markets. UK kept a much tighter control of its currency than mainland EU countries, and did pressure _constantly_ to get EU rulings in its favor.
Strangely, that rebate was mostly because of antagonism about French support for its food industries... .
That we've still not had a resolution to our financial market's future engagement with the EU shows how fundamentally [expletive]-ing stupid and utterly short-sighted Brexit was. Idiots, all.
Ssh, the only way we can get Hinkley Point C built at anything like reasonable cost is if the French government bails it out! :)
The British counterpart didn't fare so well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nuclear_Fuels_Ltd
Heck, given how much money the current administration's spunked, we could just add some more zeroes to the deficit and double up... .
But yes, you're not wrong :)
- ed - the loss of the British Nuclear industry's one of the last generation's stupidest mess-ups.
This was a UK political choice, this could have been manage differently by UK government.
> Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour
UK is the country that has mangle EU rules the most.
Can you explain what you mean by this? To me, it's always seemed that Germany and France benefit most from EU integration at the expense of the southern nations which have less industrialized export economies. I'm American, but my two cofounders are British and Swiss, so European politics is a pretty common topic of discussion.
Germany and France differ somewhat in that the EU structurally benefits them. However, they also participate in all mechanisms and, as a consequence, pay a lot of money toward other member states.
The UK, by contrast, has tried to minimize obligations while trying to keep some benefits intact.
Anyway, thing of the past.
It doesn't seem weird if Russia has a history of using its valuable airspace as a geopolitical weapon. (A 10 min video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U)
France's Macron was vocal about EU issuing sanctions against Belarus. Putin supports Belarus and in a tit-for-tat show, they denied Russia clearance to Air France flights. The motivations for economic punishments from both sides seem obvious.
I once spoke with an Air France flight attendant on a domestic flight (Paris => Rennes) and she told me that her employment contract was governed by Irish law. She was French. I don't know if this is representative of all the flight staff status. But for me it is a bit weird that a French company, owned by the French state, employs French people under an Irish status.
As a publicly traded company they are to some extent required to choose employment options that are financially beneficial, I would guess that's happening here.
There’s probably some union rules restricting them from working exclusively outside of the country they’re based.
> I want to start by saying I'm not sure Air France should be subsidized to the level we do.
This is the point. It's pork barrel of a flag carrier being under a gunpoint. The message is "I will not let even your most overpriced, over-subsidised, bathing in cash airline to make money"
I'm not sure if the idea above makes sense to somebody in American cultural context.
Great power politics don't change a lot.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Berlin_Air_Corridor
I don’t want to miss my dear JetBrains products ;)
France is not "so much richer" than Russia. You chop 40% of France's GDP and that's the GDP of Russia. Sure that's bigger but then Russia has 2x the amount of people and... 30x the country size. 30x.
I have absolutely zero doubts that Russia is going to overtake France's GDP in a not so distant future.
Since losing the Waterloo battle France went from world's 1st superpower (debatable) to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th (in the eighties and maybe still in the nineties?), then 6th and now 7th. And the path seems pretty clear to me.
(I'm not russian btw and I don't approve what Russia is doing here but I know how "cocorico" french people can be and I wouldn't want others to be mislead so I simply present facts: chop 40% of France's GDP and you've got Russia's GDP. Russia has 2x the population and 30x the land of France)
I saw a televised meeting between Putin and Lukashenko yesterday that ended with Lukashenko making the statement that went something like "the Bolsheviks rose to great heights, and we will match them", to which Putin chuckled, demurely. Its maybe not obvious to Westerners, but they are trying to rebuild a "Union of ex-Soviet States" in the region these days .. one by one, preparing a Bloc that can be an attractive partner to the EU, I suppose.
With these kinds of tit-for-tat responses, though, I guess its a shrewd strategy. "If we are allowed into the EU econo-bloc, such re-routes won't be necessary", seems to be the planned negotiating point ..
This is a cogent observation.
Putin has stated multiple times that he intends to have better relations with the EU, and that the Commonwealth of Independent States needs to work towards that goal, so .. I'm guessing you're not paying attention to that, since it doesn't serve the narrative that Russia just wants to 'go it alone against the world'.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/putin-sa...
No, it wouldn't be good for the USA, but it would be great for Europeans and Russians to see this happen some day.
Russia would be a perfectly fine partner with the EU, and it seems to be orienting towards that goal in a future date - American agitprop notwithstanding.
It takes a certain kind of disingenuous authoritarianism to claim that Russia is committing heinous acts which preclude its participation in the world order, when the majority of the world order is just fine with crimes against humanity, war crimes, and extrajudicial assassinations being performed for the criminal purposes of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Fair enough if you want to criticize Russia for being a kleptocracy that assassinates enemies on foreign soil, but diversion of flights to capture enemies of the state and then not treating them well in captivity is unfortunately not a hallmark of totalitarian regimes but a general feature of western statecraft as well, so let's not blow this tit-for-tat response out of proportion.
Practically I view the fly over ban as protecting passengers and property from being unduly seized by Belarus.
Since Belarus and Russia have close ties flying a plane into Russia at all seems about the same risk as flying that plane over and into Belarus.
Isn't that great? We're not going to allow non-democratic countries like Russia into the EU. Certainly not when they are so clearly documenting that they have zero credibility, no treaty Russia signs can be trusted. So it's probably fine that they make own club.
I mean what else would we expect them to do?
Germany and it's neo empire, AKA EU, is spineless and pathetic and deserves to die the slow death it is facing while China and Russia crushes the last hope and light left in the world. Germany just can't help itself, time and again making the world a worse place. Germans truly learnt nothing, disingenuously saying "never again" while gladhanding with a authoritarian power openly engaging in genocide: https://neveragainrightnow.com/
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/russia-oi...
Who again is spineless?
And can't Germany do anything right without US holding their hand? But to be fair yes, Biden is equally pathetic and sad for gladhanding with Russia.
Come, show those Germans what decisive, principled action looks like.
A European plane with European passengers was downed. No Americans. Putin would not have signed off on a similar operation with an American plane.
U.S. geopolitical focus is presently in the Pacific. Getting sidetracked with whatever is going on between Berlin and Moscow doesn’t serve our interests.
The US imports many times more from Canada.
(Shame our politicians can't see past autumn...)
They already have thousands pointing at them and about seven thousand ready to fly back anyone dumb enough to attack them.
A few more German nukes doesn't change their risk at all.
Edit: maybe thousands of warheads were in Germany at the height of the cold war, though a quick look through Wikipedia isn't clear about the peak number of warheads.
During the cold wars, there were at times thousands of warheads in Germany.
Unlikely to happen until Merkel is out. She has been incredibly weak when it comes to Russia.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41447603
The shutdown of Germany's nukes is a result of corruption at the most senior level, and represents one of the greatest betrayals of the German people, of Europe, and of indeed the planet given the additional emissions.
If the EU is really serious about Russian and energy independence, they should be begin a mass program of nuclear power building across the bloc.
But its more likely that all of the senior European bureaucrats and politicians are corrupted at some level.
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... (2011)
https://atomkraftwerkeplag.wikia.org/de/wiki/Meinungsumfrage...
If the chancellor was corrupted, then what about senior media controllers and leaders of the Greens movement?
Tourism in Belarus would disappear instantly..
Note. when Russia* shot down a commerical jet over Ukraine, it probably was a mistake. At-least the opposite is far fetch we're willing to believe it wasn't intentional.
* We can also say pro-russian separatists, but they are probably one and the same.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B8...
https://en.public-welfare.com/4135353-quotbomb-voronezhquot-...
[edit] My bad. Said rubbish. Apparently my understanding of this word is different from the common.
You might’ve been getting mixed up with the word “withdraw”, which means essentially what you described (to revoke, or to take away).
https://estonianworld.com/security/russia-puts-estonia-on-th...
In terms of actual long-term goals, I think, he aims to replace Lukashenko with a new pro-Russia president, so he tries to keep Lukashenko happy in the process (also making him more dependent on Russia internationally), and proving that the two countries are still best allies...
Lukashenko is generally derided for “sitting on two chairs” playing Europe against Russia (while acknowledging his impressive ability to do so for so many years). He also carried the country through the post-Soviet trouble period much better than most other former republics, for which he gets some respect.
Note that he has firmly purged the government of pro-Russian politicians over the years so there are no illusions about his friendship.
I don't think that there's a singular view to Belarus.
Russia needs the countries on its European border. It is completely exposed militarily - flat lands leading all the way to its heartland routinely used by invaders. It already has two NATO countries on its border and another country (Ukraine) that has asked to join. The last thing it needs is a wall of NATO countries pressed up against its jugular.
Having Belarus on side is critical for them.
Nobody, that's who.
I'll tell you what Putin's really afraid of. He's afraid of Russians figuring out that the people in the USSR who wound up aligned with the west are better off than the people who are under Putin. He's afraid of that reality creeping too close to his borders.
(Now, in fairness, it was absolutely absurd that France would invade Russia... until it happened. But if Putin wants buffers big enough to prevent that from happening, then he's going to need to control both Germany and France. There are no buffers big enough to disarm Russia's fears, unless you give them at least all of Europe. And maybe you'd have to give them the whole planet.)
NATO isn't an invading force, of course and is purely a defensive pact which is why they occupied Afghanistan.
Still, my point stands: Is NATO going to invade Russia, using that favorable geography? No. Absolutely not. Zero chance. No NATO country has the stomach for a war of mass casualties, and nobody is stupid enough to think that an invasion of Russia would be anything else.
(The good news is that, after Afghanistan, I don't think that Russia has the stomach for a war of mass casualties, either, and Putin knows it. So he plays games with "little green men" and the Wagner Group, but I don't think he can go much further than that. China concerns me more - I fear that at the moment, maybe they do have the stomach for it, and the temptation to try because they doubt that anyone else has the will to fight enough to give China that kind of casualties.)
Isn’t it the US that constantly invades and occupies countries, not the other way around? It’s the US I fear, it already has bases all over my country.
The whole point of the ratchet games in Eastern Europe is to make it incrementally easier until it becomes a more realistic plan. NATO probably won't have a problem edging further towards Moscow for 70 more years and Moscow will try to stymie them every step of the way.
Once it becomes realistic and winnable there's a good chance they won't need to fight. Russia would likely flip to becoming a client state of the US of its own accord. That is likely the NATO endgame - a series of puppets like Yeltsin in power for good with the labor/natural resource markets opened up for exploitation to American megacorporations, no significant industrial base of its own and a very limited military capacity.
How soon do you think Russia is going to leave the Ukraine? Ever? Are they going to take more if they get the chance? Hard to prove, but it seems likely.
So really, who's playing the ratchet game?
That all happened before the Russian/Georgian war. It followed a similar pattern to many other post Soviet Republics as well as a lot of Latin America.
Russia will leave Ukraine alone if there is somebody friendly to them in power. If not then probably not.
Plus, which adjoining country was Afghanistan invaded from, such that a larger buffer would have helped?
Afghanistan was poor and the government was militarily weak, though, which I guess is why the US figured they could execute a successful military invasion in spite of the geographical unfavorability.
Osama was definitely on to something when he baited the US into a war there. He said the war would be protracted, costly, deadly and unwinnable. $2.5 trillion down the drain and 4,000 deaths later and nothing to show for it - he was right.
The US decided that evidence was not required (& didn't really have any anyway at that point) and invaded.
These are not the actions of a defensive pact acting defensively. They're the act of a country with bloodlust.
They didn't supply troops to Ukraine cos they don't want a direct fight with another nuclear power. This was a defining feature of the cold war. That's why it was called "cold". What makes you think this time is different?
It's much lower risk and much cheaper to play the long game and stir up ethnic tensions along exposed borders and foment ethnic and cultural splits. This being famously effective at building and sustaining the British Empire and also something Russia is trying to do to the US with social media, although with limited success beyond sparking thanksgiving arguments.
You are right, the NATO didn't support the Ukraine with military equipment or even troups, despite of the treaty, because of the fear of things going nuclear. That is also the reason any allegations about the NATO attacking Russia is pure sillyness.
The only "danger" for Russia, or rather Putin, is, that more and more countries want to be independant, especially for improving economic ties to the west, as this brings economic prosperity. It is tragic, how the enourmeous wealth of Russia, thanks to its oil and gas, was wasted for fancy yachts instead of boosting the industrial upbuild of the country.
I had half joked I wanted to take the Moscow -> Bejing train at some point , but I guess I'll reasses (my IRL contacts know how much I absolutely LOVE trains), but shit like this makes me inclined to keep spending that money on overpriced coffee or whatever.
I looked at the data[1], and Russia made ~11 billion dollars from tourism in 2015, so they must really value being petty since reading these things make them sound unwelcoming, unfriendly, and straight up antisocial.
[1] a pdf in they wayback machine cited on wikipedia https://web.archive.org/web/20150112082549/http://www.e-unwt...
> The French airline, part of the broader Air France-KLM group, was forced to cancel two Paris-Moscow flights last week after receiving no Russian clearance for flight plans skirting the territory.
> Obstacles to rerouted Air France flights appeared to have been resolved late last week, allowing Air France to carry out two weekend Paris-Moscow services.
Sounds like Russian Authorities just took an extra beat (maliciously, or incompetently), or maybe the initial requested plan came too close to some military facility that the Russians had an alteration request over.
Either way, the wire services immediately smelled news even though by the time it was ready to publish, the issue was already resolved... so what's the news here?
edit: I apologize for my snark. I responded to you because you were the top comment. But it seems like that NONE of the other commenters read the article either. Apalling.
edit2: Keeping all my original content above for posterity but clearly I was wrong - jasode below clarified things.
Maybe we're all confused readers because the Reuter articles make the timeline hard to follow.
>, the issue was already resolved... so what's the news here?
The timestamp for Reuter's own linked article about the "resolved last week" flight routes was May 29: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-ap...
But this thread's article's timestamp is May 31 with new issues about the routes around Belarus that Russia is denying clearance for.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1028682/russia-federal-b...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1028682/russia-federal-b...
Does this end at some point? Where there are no more formerly state owned resources to pillage and convert to Euros/CHF/USD?
Again, the argument is that it does not matter. As long as the people in power are well compensated the general wellbeing of federation is of little consequence.
It is pretty simple. People who barely scrape by have no time, resources or focus to be fighting. They can't have too much or too little.
...Is Russia slowly bankrupting itself by pretending to be its former self?
Two countries (Latvia and Estonia) have already flipped to the west (NATO members). Ukraine is torn between Russia and the west (that's what Maidan morphed into after starting off as an anti corruption protest). Lukashenko was engaged in a struggle with pro western opponents.
There's a proxy war going on on its borders. I don't think this is about Russia trying to dominate the world. I think it's about Russia wanting to buffer its most exposed border.
If Western Canada joined in an alliance with Russia and Eastern Canada was run by a pro American dictator do you think America would behave differently?
I think this comment is far too apologetic.
It would be an exposed chokepoint if Russia didn't also hold sevastopol, though.
If they gave up entirely on their foreign policy objectives a more likely scenario than tanks would be the Russian State ending up a fragmented, powerless mess.
I don't imagine a US led NATO coalition immediately rolling tanks into Moscow if all 5 countries flip to NATO, but stirring up a separatist movement on the borders of Belarus or Ukraine and then "helping" out? Definitely.
I don't for one second believe that the US will instantly grind to a halt after creeping up on the Russian border for 70 years.
As soon as Poland had a chance, they wanted into the EU or NATO, preferably both. They, Poland, desperately wanted in. Why? Because they wanted protection from Russia, and with good historical reason.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Same story. It wasn't that the US had a nefarious plot to ensnare the border countries in a US-dominated alliance. They desperately wanted in, because they have experience with being overrun by Russia.
If Russia doesn't like this, maybe they should work on making their neighbors not feel so afraid of Russia. Things like the Ukraine and Georgia? They are not helping.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-12/finlan...
[0] https://ifunny.co/picture/select-all-squares-with-finnish-sn...
The US didn't admit them to NATO because of the volume of their begging. It admitted them because it let them put military bases right on the border of its geopolitical rival.
Similarly when Cuba begged the Soviet Union for nukes a year after a failed US invasion attempt, the Soviet Union didn't put them there just because it was felt sorry for them.
In both cases the countries were legitimately seeking protection from invasion though.
I'm not really sure if it's practical for Russia to try and make its neighbors "feel safe enough to quit NATO". In all likelihood any overtures would be treated as a sign of weakness. But, maybe you have ideas about practical steps Russia could take that would convince Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia to quit NATO. I'd be curious if you did.
If anything, in a far future some more eastern states might apply for EU membership, but with the current state of things even that isn't overly likely and would happen in an absolutely peaceful manner.
And if you think that nuclear engineers are making significantly more than an average Ivan, then I have a bad news for you, that's unlikely. For example, a friend of mine works for a subcontractor of Roscosmos (Russian space activities corporation, basically russian "NASA") as an electronic measurements instrumentation engineer and makes 60000 rubles per month before taxes (roughly 850$ per month). That's a joke of a salary and he is only able to work there because he is owning a property in Moscow.
https://evisa.kdmid.ru/
Most western countries can actually visit without getting a visa in your passport beforehand.
The US and the UK also benefit a lot from tourism, and yet they have an extremely hostile border control system + an extremely onerous visa application process (I got a Russian visa a few times... It's definitely simpler)
Sadly, he's probably right. EU has a habit of "forgetting" about human rights when it gets in the way of profit.
See the two French military ships which were supposed to be sold to Russia in 2014, and which ended in Turkey (another human rights bastion).
See the Nordstream gas pipeline to Russia.
See the total inaction regarding the downing of the MH14 flight.
So there is the global economic game, and then there is the global political game. All we ever talk about in media is the political game since it's easy to digest in sound bites, but the economics are running the real decision process as much as the politics.
"According to Bolivia, the flight 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".
One big difference is that RyanAir was a commercial flight, and it's covered by the International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA), which protects the right to fly over a country's airspace in order to travel between two other countries. Evo Morales plane, on the other hand, belongs to Bolivian Air Force[0]. IASTA applies only to civil aviation (RyanAir), not to military flights (Evo Morales).
Second difference is that France and Italy denied that military flight the right to enter their airspace, which is entirely in their right. Iran and North Korea can similarly deny Biden the right to pass over them in Air Force One. Belarus, on the other hand, waited till RyanAir aircraft was 30 minutes in their airspace, and then — instead of asking it to leave it asap — forced it to land by sending a fighter jet.
Third difference is that in Evo Morales case, nobody used a (clearly fake) bomb threat.
So no, people do remember that. These are two cases that are superficially similar, but very different in practice.
[0] https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/fab-001
As for the differences they seem like technical legal details that do not really change the situation.
But if you want other similar cases then here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...
I didn't call anyone that; I've just pointed out that this is the argument these propagandists make. To be clear, I'm not calling you "Russian and Belarusian propagandist" either, I'm just pointing out you and them make the same arguments.
> they seem like technical legal details
But legal details is all that matters. If two guys sleep with the same girl, one a day before her 18th birthday, the other one day after, the acts may be similar — however, because of "technical legal details", one of these acts has no consequences, while the other is a statutory rape and may lead to imprisonment.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes