Air Serbia Flights To Russia Face Repeated Bomb Threats

Air Serbia Flights To Russia Face Repeated Bomb Threats

103

While other airlines have cut flights to Russia, Air Serbia has decided to increase capacity to the country. These flights are facing operational issues… in the form of bomb threats.

Air Serbia increases flights to Moscow & St. Petersburg

With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we’ve seen many countries take sides. The United States, Canada, the European Union, etc., have all imposed sanctions against Russia. They’ve banned Russian airlines from their airspace, and that has been made reciprocal, meaning that airlines from those countries are also banned from Russian airspace.

Serbia, on the other hand, has taken a more neutral stance, as the country often does. On the aviation front, Serbia hasn’t banned flights to & from Russia. As a result, national airline Air Serbia responded to market demand, and initially significantly increased flights to Russia.

The airline is even flying its flagship Airbus A330 to Moscow and St. Petersburg, even though that wide body typically operates flights to New York. Admittedly the demand for travel to & from Russia is significant, at least compared to capacity, with Aeroflot having suspended international flights (except to Belarus) and European Union airlines being banned from Russia. For those looking to fly between the European Union and Russia, Air Serbia is one of the only options.

As you’d expect, this is causing quite some controversy, as Air Serbia is profiting off of the demand for travel to & from Russia, as other airlines pull out. While I appreciate that frustration (and largely share it), I’m not sure we can actually unequivocally say that completely cutting off air links to & from Russia is a good thing, even if you’re heavily anti-Putin.

On the most basic level, shouldn’t we let people flee Russia, especially if they fear for their safety (for whatever reason)? Admittedly that probably doesn’t describe a majority of people taking these flights (there are also lots of people flying to Russia), but my point is that this is complicated.

Air Serbia’s Russia flights keep getting bomb threats

In March alone, Air Serbia’s flights to Moscow and St. Petersburg have received several bomb threats. These have allegedly come in the form of emails expressing displeasure at the carrier’s choice to continue flying to Russia.

In some situations these bomb threats were made while the plane was on the ground (in which case a thorough search was performed), while in other cases the threats were made after planes were airborne (causing them to turn around to Belgrade).

The first incident was on March 11, 2022, on JU652 from Belgrade (BEG) to Moscow (SVO). The plane took off from Belgrade but then turned around shortly after takeoff, when the threat came in. The plane ended up being in the air for under 30 minutes before returning to Belgrade. The plane was then extensively searched, and ended up departing to Moscow around seven hours after scheduled departure time. Ouch.

Credit: Flightradar24

On March 14, 2022, the same exact flight faced another bomb threat, this time a bit later after takeoff. In this case the plane made it all the way to the border between Hungary and Slovakia before turning around. The plane ended up operating a 90+ minute flight to nowhere. After a thorough search, the plane eventually departed to Moscow over six hours late.

Credit: Flightradar24

A day later, on March 15, an Air Serbia flight to Moscow had yet another bomb threat. This one was before takeoff, though, so the flight was only delayed by around three hours. Oh and then March 17? The flight had a similar delay.

In the meantime Air Serbia has backtracked on some of its Russia flight increases. Presumably that’s a combination of issues with the optics of these flights, as well as the general operational challenges of operating flights that constantly get bomb threats.

Bottom line

Air Serbia has not only maintained service to Russia, but initially tried to increase it, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The airline has faced repeated bomb threats on these flights as a result, allegedly as a way of expressing displeasure with the company’s service.

In two cases Air Serbia flights even had to return to Belgrade, as the threats came after planes were airborne. In the meantime the airline has backtracked on some of its capacity growth in Russia, but Air Serbia is still offering quite a bit of service to the country.

Where do you stand on Air Serbia’s service to Russia?

Conversations (103)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. ChicagoGuy Guest

    Not surprising... at all. Serbia idolizes Russia and all that it stands for. And has Serbia ever been on the right side of any humanitarian issue? I love Serbian food and have many good Serbian friends (Chicago is the largest US population) but their cultural identify and nationalistic politics are so aligned the perpetuation perceived victimization with Russia as their closest friend.

  2. Andy Diamond

    Firstly, bomb threats are not tolerable, regardless what anyone's view on Air Serbia's business model is. Even if Serbia is free not to adopt the sanctions, I would expect that they reduce their business to "business as usual", not exploiting sanctions evasion.

  3. DavisLinburg Guest

    Firstly, why has Turkey not been condemned for still flying to Russia? It has three times as many flights.

    Secondly, many Serbians see the war as brothers killing brothers and it is hard to take sides in a civil war.
    So Serbia may be flying to Moscow but it has also taken in over 10,000 Ukranian refugees.

    1. jetjock64 Guest

      This is not a civl war, which is one part of a country fighting against another part. It is a calculated invasion and land grab by depraved dictator and his minions. Serbians cannot be so stupid and uninformed as to not know and understand the difference.

    2. DavisLinburg Guest

      Then what has been happening since 2014? Over a million Russian refugees fled Ukranian troops yet the EU did nothing. One third of the Ukraine are ethnic Russians.

      This is the reality which does not justify what Putin did but it does help understand what is happening, which is the only way to achieve peace.

      Also categorizing an entire country as ''stupid'' adds nothing to the discussion especially since Serbia has been helping Ukranian refugees.

    3. David Diamond

      Fled Ukrainian troops on whose territory? Russian troops are now marching on whose sovereign territory?

    4. Mh Diamond

      What happened since 2014? That is when Russia invaded Ukraine to begin with. This is just a massive escalation of that.

  4. Jesse Member

    First of all, good on Air Serbia for continuing to fly to Russia. The airspace bans imposed on Aeroflot were beyond ridiculous, and did nothing more than break up families, like mine, who live both in Western countries and in Russia. Second, though the war really sucks, Western countries have massively overreacted. How do you think the US would react if Mexico tried to join a Russian-led security alliance and host Russian missiles right on...

    First of all, good on Air Serbia for continuing to fly to Russia. The airspace bans imposed on Aeroflot were beyond ridiculous, and did nothing more than break up families, like mine, who live both in Western countries and in Russia. Second, though the war really sucks, Western countries have massively overreacted. How do you think the US would react if Mexico tried to join a Russian-led security alliance and host Russian missiles right on America's border? It wouldn't be tolerated. It's the same concept with Russia and Ukraine. Also, take into consideration the American-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that killed over 170,000 people, including nearly 50,000 civilians. Moreover, the unjustified American invasion of Iraq not only destabilized the entire region and directly led to the rise of ISIS, but also claimed the lives of well over 100,000 people. Why were those okay, but then Russia's action somehow not? It's a massive double standard,and the US and its European allied are being highly htpocritical in this situation, given many of their histories of colonialism and genocide. I'm not anti-American or pro-Russian. I just have a brain and can view the whole thing with rationality.

    1. jetjock64 Guest

      @ Jesse. How is providing humanitarian supplies to a people being murdered "overreacting?" Unkraine does not, and has not, hosted foreign missiles threatening Russia, so your "Mexico missile" analogy is inapposite. And, your writing reveals you as "Pro-Russian" in this instance regardless of what you might say.

    2. Jesse Member

      I was talking about the sanctions being a massive overreaction, considering the US is a serial offender when it comes to invading other countries in attempts to impose its will. I notice you skipped over the part about the US and its European allies being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the destabilization of the region. You simply cannot argue against that fact. How is Russia's action...

      I was talking about the sanctions being a massive overreaction, considering the US is a serial offender when it comes to invading other countries in attempts to impose its will. I notice you skipped over the part about the US and its European allies being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the destabilization of the region. You simply cannot argue against that fact. How is Russia's action any different than what the US has done? And Ukraine openly wanted to join NATO, so the Mexico analogy is quite relevant. Russian influence in North America would not be tolerated by the US, so it stands to reason that Russia decided not to tolerate US interference in a country it considers to be in its sphere of influence. Western media also conveniently brushes over the fact that Ukrainian forces have targeted civilians in Donbass since those regions decided to break away, so Ukraine isn't squeaky clean and has committed the same atrocious acts they are complaining about. Again, I am not "pro-Russian" or "anti-American," but I can spot the very obvious hypocrisy. This conflict is the responsibility of all parties involved, not just Russia. Many people are just too blind to understand the entire set of circumstances that led up to the invasion.

    3. Giovanna Member

      Jesse, your point of Russia fearing the missiles in a neighbouring country is exactly the propaganda Putin is using to defend this invasion! Want to try again on " I'm not pro Russian"?

    4. Jesse Member

      @Giovanna Considering I have 2 Master's degress in International Relations and Foriegn Policy, one each from an American university and a Russian university, I am well-versed in the doctrines, mentality and viewpoint of both nations. I am able to remove the emotion of conflicts and analyze their causes. I can say with a good degree of confidence that eventually Ukraine would have joined NATO and hosted NATO missiles, just like the other eastern European nations...

      @Giovanna Considering I have 2 Master's degress in International Relations and Foriegn Policy, one each from an American university and a Russian university, I am well-versed in the doctrines, mentality and viewpoint of both nations. I am able to remove the emotion of conflicts and analyze their causes. I can say with a good degree of confidence that eventually Ukraine would have joined NATO and hosted NATO missiles, just like the other eastern European nations that have already joined. Moreover, its pretty obvious that the CIA was involved in destabilizing Ukraine back in 2013-14, and the installation of a regime openly anti-Russian and hostile to Russia on its borders was of serious concern. Of course Russia doesn't like that. A big difference in American and Russian foreign policy is that the US still sees itself as the dominant power in the world and tries to maintain global influence, whereas Russia is primarily interested in the near-abroad (think post-Soviet states). The US routinely uses its military, and has them deployed worldwide, for what it deems security reasons. Russia takes a military action for what it considers security reasons, and the Western world imposes crippling sanctions. Russia sees this as massively hypocritical. In response, Russia feels like it is being backed into a corner and is increasingly ramping up its assault the more it feels that it has nothing to lose. Which makes Russia very dangerous in this situation. Of course, the overall issue is way more complex, and impossible to explain here, but it makes sense why Russia took the military option, even if it is unpleasant.

    5. Dennis Guest

      @Jesse I agree with you. Obviously these other people only get their information from Instagram and CNN. So perhaps we should feel sorry for them?! Lol

    6. Giovanna Member

      @Dennis
      guess what... I haven't got Instagram and where I live I don't get to watch CNN, Fox or any of the other American news!

      @Jesse
      you say you have family in Russia and in the States... well, even if you don't realise it, your emotions are going to play a rule in what you think/say. You can't just switch them of, not with one, two or more masters!

      @ for everybody...

      @Dennis
      guess what... I haven't got Instagram and where I live I don't get to watch CNN, Fox or any of the other American news!

      @Jesse
      you say you have family in Russia and in the States... well, even if you don't realise it, your emotions are going to play a rule in what you think/say. You can't just switch them of, not with one, two or more masters!

      @ for everybody else... for your reasoning Russia attacked Ukraine because they were afraid of their neighbours getting missiles some time in the future. Well, suppose Russia was just lucky then that her neighbours didn't attack first seeing that Russia has nuclear arms.

      But whoever is right or wrong, one thing is for sure... Putin is just simply destroying a country. When he's finished there won't be anything else left than rubble!!!
      До свидания

    7. guisun Gold

      Argument from authority is used when the argument is weak. You just went on about 3 paragraphs criticizing about the hypocrisy of the West to justify Putin's action. I mean you are pro-Putin, you just haven't realized it yet, or you want to believe that you can remove emotions when making an analysis. Btw, you tell Kremlin propaganda as a fact. The majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU, and Ukraine was about to...

      Argument from authority is used when the argument is weak. You just went on about 3 paragraphs criticizing about the hypocrisy of the West to justify Putin's action. I mean you are pro-Putin, you just haven't realized it yet, or you want to believe that you can remove emotions when making an analysis. Btw, you tell Kremlin propaganda as a fact. The majority of Ukrainians wanted to join the EU, and Ukraine was about to sign EU association agreement, then Kremlin started blocking all Ukrainian imports to Russia, but the tip of iceberg was when suddenly Yanukovych got bribed by Russia (The "loan" from Russia) and switched Eurasian Economic Union. That is when people started protesting. I was there right before it right before Euromaidan with my ex Ukrainian girlfriend. We left before it got too dangerous. Yanukovych ordered the police to shoot protesters, and the rest is history.
      The CIA didn't destabilize Ukraine, that's propaganda from Kremlin. It was Putin meddling with Ukrainian internal affairs then, that destabilized Ukraine.

    8. Dusty Guest

      You suffer from an inability to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Fear of NATO troops and missiles next to its heartland has been constantly voiced by every Russian head of state from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin to Medvedev. They were all very consistent on this single point. Attempting to frame the current conflict as anything other than NATO/the US crossing the red line that Russia has warned us about for over 30...

      You suffer from an inability to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Fear of NATO troops and missiles next to its heartland has been constantly voiced by every Russian head of state from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin to Medvedev. They were all very consistent on this single point. Attempting to frame the current conflict as anything other than NATO/the US crossing the red line that Russia has warned us about for over 30 years is disingenuous. This conflict did not pop up out of nowhere, it is not happening because of Putin specifically or any of these nonsensical motives western media is ascribing to him, that he wants to rebuild the USSR or he's Hitler 2.0 or any of that bunk.

      It's happening because the Russian state has a justified paranoia of western European military alliances and coalitions sitting next to its heartland. NATO may be a "defensive" alliance, but that's not much consolation to any student of history. After all, every alliance involved in WWI was "defensive". And NATO has also gone to war in living memory, against Serbia, who had neither attacked nor posed any threat to the NATO countries. NATO also, as a result of that war, overturned 70 years of precedent in Europe by carving out a new country, in violation of the post-WWII agreement that borders were inviolable because changing them only breeds more resentment and conflict. If humanitarian reasons are enough NATO to attack Serbia and carve out the new country of Kosovo, then what stops this from being the case for any other country?

    9. Dusty Guest

      Apologies, that previous comment was supposed to be @Giovanna
      I'm in agreement with Jesse on this.

    10. David Diamond

      @Dusty

      How about nuclear arms? Seems to me NATO is doing everything possible to avoid direct confrontation and escalation into a nuclear exchange. Even given the current failure of the Russian army (and hence vulnerability), and its unprovoked aggression (i.e. justification for retaliation), NATO has exercised a high degree of restraint.

      Yet here you are, claiming NATO would've went in and attacked Russia, unprovoked, if Russia didn't attack Ukraine? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell...

      @Dusty

      How about nuclear arms? Seems to me NATO is doing everything possible to avoid direct confrontation and escalation into a nuclear exchange. Even given the current failure of the Russian army (and hence vulnerability), and its unprovoked aggression (i.e. justification for retaliation), NATO has exercised a high degree of restraint.

      Yet here you are, claiming NATO would've went in and attacked Russia, unprovoked, if Russia didn't attack Ukraine? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

    11. Dennis Guest

      Actually it was Ukraine that was knocking on NATO's door. Ukraine also failed to implement any of the agreements made during the Minsk talks back in 2014. It explains the relative inaction on the part of Germany and France because they were part of those talks and don't want to be caught with egg on their face. Anyway, now Ukraine have discovered Europe's hypocrisy and that the US and Europe don't actually care about them.

    12. David Diamond

      US and the Europe don't care, therefore they imposed heavy sanctions on Russia, which will also affect their own economies and create energy issues? There is a vast ocean between not caring and willing to march straight towards global nuclear war over Ukraine.

    13. Dusty Guest

      @David
      We're doing everything we can to avoid escalating it because, in our self-righteous crusade to export democracy to the world we never stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, Russia might be serious about its security concerns and not just that line as some weak excuse to hold on to its old satellites. Now we see that yes, they were dead serious, and it's all we can do to minimize the fallout. If...

      @David
      We're doing everything we can to avoid escalating it because, in our self-righteous crusade to export democracy to the world we never stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, Russia might be serious about its security concerns and not just that line as some weak excuse to hold on to its old satellites. Now we see that yes, they were dead serious, and it's all we can do to minimize the fallout. If they didn't think NATO in Ukraine was an existential threat to their security, they'd not be in Ukraine right now.

      And no, do not put words in my mouth. I never made any such claim that NATO *would* attack Ukraine. Only that the precedent of this "defensive" alliance attacking a foreign country that posed no threat whatsoever exists, and that attack by NATO was unprovoked. Russian leadership would be derelict in their duty if they weren't concerned over that. Characterizing an alliance as "defensive" does not mean that the alliance is incapable of offensive military action against a non-alliance member, nor does it mean that the alliance never *will* engage in unprovoked action against another nation.

      @guisun
      When the country is a nuclear armed state, I'd say their paranoia is a great justification for listening to their concerns and compromising with them. Ignoring them is eventually going to cause conflict, no matter how "good" or "moral" your supposed intentions are.

    14. David Diamond

      @Dusty

      Answer this simple question: Has the NATO ever engaged any nuclear power, let alone the country with the single largest nuclear arsenal in the world?

      While Russia likes to claim it's a "security concern", the fact is it's all just bullshit, because NATO (like all rational actors) do not have the stomach for a nuclear exchange. An attack on Russian soil is definitely an existential threat that can lead to that. Even if Ukraine...

      @Dusty

      Answer this simple question: Has the NATO ever engaged any nuclear power, let alone the country with the single largest nuclear arsenal in the world?

      While Russia likes to claim it's a "security concern", the fact is it's all just bullshit, because NATO (like all rational actors) do not have the stomach for a nuclear exchange. An attack on Russian soil is definitely an existential threat that can lead to that. Even if Ukraine joins the NATO (which was unlikely pre-invasion), there is no real threat to Russia's established borders.

      Putin has always talked about unifying the old motherland, and given his drop in popularity, the solution has always been (e.g. Crimea) tackling an eternal threat, real or imaginary. He just did not anticipate the resolve of NATO. And you're absolutely bonkers if you think risking a nuclear war and having hundreds of millions dead, if not billions, just to send troops into Ukraine isn't irrational.

    15. Dusty Guest

      @David
      That's besides the point. Even without the Serbia precedent, which illustrates quite clearly the reality that no military alliance is truly guaranteed to stay a "defensive" one, national security is not based current feelings or force calculations. It's based on future possibilities. Essentially entire reason Germany and Austria went to war in 1914. Try a thought experiment. Russia allows Ukraine and Georgia to pursue NATO membership from 2008 on, and 20 years down...

      @David
      That's besides the point. Even without the Serbia precedent, which illustrates quite clearly the reality that no military alliance is truly guaranteed to stay a "defensive" one, national security is not based current feelings or force calculations. It's based on future possibilities. Essentially entire reason Germany and Austria went to war in 1914. Try a thought experiment. Russia allows Ukraine and Georgia to pursue NATO membership from 2008 on, and 20 years down the road they're full members and hosting NATO nukes and ABM systems. Now some other disagreement has deteriorated relations between NATO and Russia, but NATO has Russia by the balls at this point. Missiles are a few minutes from Moscow in this hypothetical, and there's been a large ABM system to neuter a Russian counterstrike on Europe and the US for decades. Russia's sovereignty is gone, they must acquiesce to a foreign power's orders or face nuclear annihilation.

      That's very much a worst case scenario, but Russia has faced many invasions from western powers going back centuries. The most recent one, still in living memory, was the largest and most destructive land invasion to date in history and it occurred only 20 years after the "War to end all Wars". Is it any wonder then that they're paranoid, and that they're willing to go so far to ensure they can't be threatened in a similar manner again?

      With regards to "unifying the motherland", you're misrepresenting the reasons for the conflict. I'll reiterate again, NATO expansion was warned against by every Russian head of state from the '80s onwards. Consistently, they vehemently disagreed with it and warned that it would cause a future conflict. Putin may dress it up as a more noble cause, but at the end of the day national security is the reason for this conflict. A historical parallel would be the American Civil War. Lincoln went to war to keep the Union together. It was only near the end of the war that it became about slavery, a much more palatable moral justification for the massive death and human suffering the war had caused. This is no different. And it should be very clear to you just how dire the Russian government believes the situation is. After all, they're risking nuclear war. Do you truly think the they would go to such extremes if this was about something as silly as rebuilding the USSR, something Putin has also said is long dead and never returning? This is entirely about preventing an existential threat to Russia. Ukraine got their official path to membership in NATO back in November 2021, so Russia is acting before it's too late for them to do anything about it.

    16. David Diamond

      The longer a response, generally it means the more mental gymnastics required. ;)

      A fear about some hypothetical future is not grounds for the armed invasion of another sovereign nation. I suppose now the US should just strike China with a bunch of nukes first before China builds up a large enough arsenal and economy to be a real threat to US homeland security? What a ridiculous argument.

      Once again, Russia is not Serbia. Serbia...

      The longer a response, generally it means the more mental gymnastics required. ;)

      A fear about some hypothetical future is not grounds for the armed invasion of another sovereign nation. I suppose now the US should just strike China with a bunch of nukes first before China builds up a large enough arsenal and economy to be a real threat to US homeland security? What a ridiculous argument.

      Once again, Russia is not Serbia. Serbia has no nuclear deterrence. Russia has hyper-sonic delivery systems and a huge tactical nuclear arsenal.

    17. Dusty Guest

      @David
      Context requires text. If I've exceeded your attention span, then that's your problem and maybe twitter is more your speed. If you think you can hang, then continue reading. You might actually learn something ;)

      When faced with a major threat in the near future, countries tend to act on it. Once again, you have the historical parallel of Germany and Austria going to war in 1914, being stuck between the traditonal European...

      @David
      Context requires text. If I've exceeded your attention span, then that's your problem and maybe twitter is more your speed. If you think you can hang, then continue reading. You might actually learn something ;)

      When faced with a major threat in the near future, countries tend to act on it. Once again, you have the historical parallel of Germany and Austria going to war in 1914, being stuck between the traditonal European powerhouse France allied with a rapidly modernizing Russia. They acted when they believed that had a good chance of becoming the top dog in Europe, and they knew that if they waited Russia's modernization coupled with France would make them powerless. The fundamental difference between that, today's Ukraine crisis, and your China example is that the US has Japan, Taiwan, and the entire Pacific ocean between itself and it's nearest great power competition. Russia has... Ukraine. And they'd rather see Ukraine turned into another Afghanistan than have it go to into NATO.

      Re hypersonics, apply some critical thinking. Have you ever wondered why Russia and China are focusing so much on them, while the US with it's comparatively huge resources does not? The answer is ABM systems. The US unilaterally pulled out of that arms limitation treaty, and has extensively developed their own systems and placed them at home and in central Europe. This has drastically effected the balance of power, and thereby the calculations that make MAD what it is, by making legacy Soviet nuclear missiles far less effective, and Russia and China have no answer to do the same for legacy US missiles. Hypersonics are required to restore the balance of power, and Russia (and to a far lesser degree China) is now forced to take on the brunt of developing this bleeding edge tech with its comparatively tiny economy and poor scientific and industrial capacity.

    18. David Diamond

      @Dusty

      And more examples from pre-nuclear and non-nuclear powers, as if the calculus is the same as nuclear Russia. You act like an ABM system can actually block even conventional ICBMs with enough accuracy to not cause serious devastation to the US mainland if Russia even fired off a fraction of their tactical stockpile. As great as even the cutting edge Aegis ABM is, it can hardly stop anywhere near enough of Russia's active missiles....

      @Dusty

      And more examples from pre-nuclear and non-nuclear powers, as if the calculus is the same as nuclear Russia. You act like an ABM system can actually block even conventional ICBMs with enough accuracy to not cause serious devastation to the US mainland if Russia even fired off a fraction of their tactical stockpile. As great as even the cutting edge Aegis ABM is, it can hardly stop anywhere near enough of Russia's active missiles. Of course, this entire conversation is predicated on the joke that any nation in this world would've supported a US aggression and nuclear exchange with Russia, given its proximity to Europe. Even EU allies would condemn and abandon the US if a bunch of nukes flew over EU and sent radiation dust all over Europe.

      The entire premise that Russia would be in existential danger from the US anywhere in the foreseeable future is laughable. Attempting to bend over backwards to justify it is perhaps the only bigger joke.

    19. Dusty Guest

      @David
      The calculus is always risk to reward. Nukes do increase the risk, but they don't necessarily make a hostile action inconceivable. Our political masters will have different ideas about what constitutes acceptable risk for a given reward that may wildly differ from what you or I believe is acceptable. Case in point, the ABM system we've built and deployed has always been supposedly meant to head off aggression from North Korea or Iran...

      @David
      The calculus is always risk to reward. Nukes do increase the risk, but they don't necessarily make a hostile action inconceivable. Our political masters will have different ideas about what constitutes acceptable risk for a given reward that may wildly differ from what you or I believe is acceptable. Case in point, the ABM system we've built and deployed has always been supposedly meant to head off aggression from North Korea or Iran and was not directed towards Russia, until Trump entered the White House and he and his hardline supporters were clamoring to show Russia we meant business and the ABM system then became a tool towards that end.

      To weigh this calculus even further in the US's favor, the US actually has a higher number of active strategic nuclear delivery devices than Russia, even though Russia has a larger total nuclear device stockpile. That's a very important piece of information, and factoring in France or the UK puts the ratio at closer to 2:1 against Russia. Then factor in the amount of these devices that are delivered by heavy bomber or submarine, with Russian boomers and bombers being pretty vulnerable in comparison to their NATO counterparts, and the ratio gets even worse for Russia with regards to what they can expect to have a good chance of reaching the target. And that's before factoring in the ABM systems or the the endemic issues we're now seeing with Russia being unable to ensure its weapons are maintained well enough to perform even half as well as advertised. With all that, the picture from the Russian POV is quite clear. The US has a massive nuclear edge, and with NATO thrown in it gets even worse for them. The fact that anyone could claim with a straight face that expansion of this military force into Ukraine isn't an existential threat to Russia has had way too much of the "defensive" alliance koolaid.

      https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm-shield-in-europe-and-russias-response-ari/
      https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/12/13/u.s.-exit-from-anti-ballistic-missile-treaty-has-fueled-new-arms-race-pub-85977

      Some additional food for thought with regards to how Russia perceives the US's exit from the ABM treaty and subsequent establishment of the ABM systems in central Europe, from both Spanish and American policy thinktanks. With regards to bring Ukraine into NATO specifically, there's plenty of warning and analysis on the likely results of that decision from American foreign relations scholars such as John Mearsheimer, American and other NATO diplomats and high officials such as Amb. Joseph Mussomeli, Amb. Sir Roderic Lyne, CIA Director Bill Burns, US Def. Secretary Robert Gates, Amb. George Kennan, Amb. Jack F. Matlock, US Def. Secretary William Perry, Australian PM Paul Keating, the list goes on and on.

    20. guisun Gold

      Since when paranoia is ever justified? Also these countries joined NATO because they feared Russia would do something like this. And Russia has no say in the security policy of a sovereign country, why should Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Ukraine have to accommodate Russians interests? I'm sure these country has no say in Russian policies.

    21. Eskimo Guest

      And after this long exchange, people still don't realize the power of Western propaganda yet.

      Facebook censor fake news from Russia. But now Russia blocks Facebook. Isn't it ironic.

      Somehow in every side's propaganda it's called bully when you're the victim and peacekeeper if you're the offender.

    22. David Diamond

      @Eskimo

      After this long exchange, people still don't realize the power of Russian propaganda yet. ;)

    23. Eskimo Guest

      @David

      I've already proven your double standard on another post.
      Or would you like to answer my question to you here.
      In 100 years if Ukraine thrives under Russian rule, would you have praised Putin for the invasion?

      Russian propaganda is quite clear, they blocked Facebook.

    24. David Diamond

      What double standards? You Americans trying to tell citizens of other nations who to cancel? If Americans want to #CancelQueenVictoria I'm sure none of us would care very much, go right on ahead!

    25. Mh Diamond

      Yes, they blocked facebook. Because they control the Russian equivalent, vkontakte. Any problematic posts there can be hidden, and the posters identified and locked up as needed.

      So yes, you've confirmed how Russian propaganda works. Control the channels and what people can hear.

    26. jason Guest

      @Jesse, the moron,

      You are a dunce, with a so-called master's degree in international relations, which in itself is a bogus major, without requiring any expertise. Did you read some news paper articles on the internet to get your degree? Go work for Putin! He has a job for you to lie to the world. Come and tell us again about whataboutism!

    27. Jesse Member

      @Jason Stooping to insult someone you disagree with without providing any substantive rebuttal is a massive indicator of a lack of education. You definitely seem to fit that bill. While you insult IR degrees, there'd be few diplomats or anyone with the expertise to formulate foreign policy without them. Moreover, I, unlike a vast majority of people who like to think they know what they are talking about when it comes to Russia, have spent...

      @Jason Stooping to insult someone you disagree with without providing any substantive rebuttal is a massive indicator of a lack of education. You definitely seem to fit that bill. While you insult IR degrees, there'd be few diplomats or anyone with the expertise to formulate foreign policy without them. Moreover, I, unlike a vast majority of people who like to think they know what they are talking about when it comes to Russia, have spent over a decade in Russia and currently spend several months of the year there due to my child living there with my ex. I understand Russians probably better than most American policymakers whose actual job it is to understand Russians. Oh, by the way, I earn 7 figures annually with my "bogus" degree, so yeah....... not so bogus.

    28. Jason Guest

      @Jesse, the dunce,

      No wonder you are class A moron! To say you know more about Russia than anyone else. Good, now go and solved the problem instead of lurking on internet! BTW, Which part of Russia are you in? Putin loves you!

    29. andrew Guest

      Mr. Jason,

      Please be more respectful of Mr. Jesse.
      Jesse has presented very good arguments and points of view,
      very constructive, I agree. This is the type of dialogue that will help put an end to this absurd conflict.
      Jesse You should work in an Embassy of any of the countries involved.

  5. D3kingg Guest

    Yeah yeah yeah. Listen all you cry babies. NATO slaughtered and murdered Serbians during the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1999.

    1. John Guest

      @D3kingg

      Says the lady who goes "yeah yeah yeah" like a pouty teen girl. Not much of an improvement on "cry babies" is it?

      Now calm down and engage like a mature adult (I assume, but cannot prove you are actually a mature adult).

    2. Giovanna Member

      Don't think he/she is a mature adult. Still has some very big lacks in History. So, or he/she is still at school and learning, or, he/she doesn't want to acknowledge what happened in Jugoslavia. Anyway... NOT anmature adult!

    3. jetjock64 Guest

      @D3kingg. NATO did not "slaughter" and "murder" Serbians in the 1999. NATO's intervention was due to Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region, and NATO succeeded. You would have to be brainwashed by Slavic propagands to believe anything else.

  6. Joel Guest

    No, any airline, whether it be passenger or cargo, that flys into or to Russia should be denied landing rights in every country aligned against Russian.

    Boo Hoo, rich Russians can’t flee to their second home in Paris or Gastad. My heart goes out to them. What about the Ukrainian have lost everything, their lives, their homes, their cities, their country.

  7. dander Guest

    I do not care for what Russia is doing nor do I care for bomb threats either

  8. Jance Guest

    All talk and no action.

    Those who are making bomb threats should shut up and quit making empty threats. There are plenty of Stingers floating around the region, and it shouldn't be THAT hard to get your hands on one.

    1. Worried in Seattle Guest

      How is this post acceptable? It’s not that so ago that a civilian plane git blown up over Ukraine…

    2. Bobo Bolinski Guest

      Indeed, that plane was shot down by the Russians. Karma?

  9. Steven E Guest

    I guess that’s what happens when you want to take advantage of a terrible situation

    1. D3kingg Guest

      What do you know. Joe Biden has started World War 3.

    2. UA-NYC Diamond

      Hey look it’s another Tucker C slurping cuck parroting the Russian line. Great job comrade!

    3. Giovanna Member

      Oh wow... that's news to me! Didn't know that it was Biden that invaded Ukraine.

    4. Kein Guest

      What do you know. Vladmir Putin has started World War 3.

    5. Dennis Guest

      Pretty much what the US does. Check which companies and industries are seeing massive profits from all this.

  10. jsm Guest

    Interesting postings from all sides on this issue.

    From a historical perspective no one should be surprised if Serbia is taking a neutral to pro-Russian stance. All one needs to have is a knowledge of the start of WW I in 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by a Bosnian Serb nationalist with the backing of Serbia. To get to the issue, Russia backed Serbia's rejection of the Austrian ultimatum, offering...

    Interesting postings from all sides on this issue.

    From a historical perspective no one should be surprised if Serbia is taking a neutral to pro-Russian stance. All one needs to have is a knowledge of the start of WW I in 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by a Bosnian Serb nationalist with the backing of Serbia. To get to the issue, Russia backed Serbia's rejection of the Austrian ultimatum, offering military support,

    The rest is history. Ever since, Serbia and Russia have enjoyed a warm pan-Slavic relationship - consider the Russian support of Serbia's Milosevic when Yugoslavia disintegrated. Another example of support

    1. jetjock64 Guest

      @jsm. Your'e going back a hundred years to justify (or try to explain to us why Serbians today could possibly justify) this unprovoked Russian invasion? The true facts are that Serbians have been fed anti-Western and pro-Russian propaganda from childhood and could believe nothing else, even if true.

  11. David Diamond

    Not sanctioning Russia is not anymore neutral than watching a kid get beat up by an adult, and saying you won't get involved because you're trying to stay neutral.

    1. Arie Guest

      Is that really a fair analogy? In this case placing sanctions on russia is like seeing a kid being bullied by an adult so we decide to place sanctions on his entire family and extended family, and their kids, but not the bully himself which is Putin, not Russia.

      The Serbians themselves know better than us what's it like to be bullied, they were bombed by NATO, and no one here gave a s**t about them because we were doing the bombing.

    2. David Diamond

      You think there's no sanction on Putin himself? And you think Putin alone can start a war if all his top generals and aides are not on-board?

      And to complain about unfair comparisons, then try to present the controversial bombing of Serbia as the same as the unanimously condemned actions of Russia. How hypocritical.

    3. David Diamond

      Putin was among the first to be sanctioned: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0610

    4. Giovanna Guest

      Like to explain what the reason for bombing Serbia was?

    5. D3kingg Guest

      @Giovana

      There was once a country called Yugoslavia. And it then turned into Macedonia , Bosnia, Herzigovenia , Albania , Serbia , and Croatia. NATO raped women and children it was a war of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
      Exactly what does Serbia owe the EU and NATO ?

    6. Giovanna Guest

      @D3kingg

      You just might want to get a History book and have a read up!
      Albania has never been part of Jugoslavia (and yes it's Jugoslavia and not Yugoslavia - Социјалистичка федеративна република Југославија )
      And, from 1993 to 2017, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Jugoslavia tried political and military leaders from the former Jugoslavia for war crimes, genocide, and other crimes committed during those wars. NATO wasn't on trial... wonder why?!

    7. tuotuo Member

      Very well said.But he might say the trial was rigged by the West.You can't reason with brainwashed people.

    8. David Diamond

      Care to explain what Serbia has anything to do with whether Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified, or whether Russia should be sanctioned for its actions?

      The whataboutism is strong with all the Russian trolls. Guess they took a page out of their fellow authoritarian regime, the Chinese trolls.

    9. Roger534 Guest

      Every airline, company or individual who is not acting against the Nazi Putin regime is voting to kill more Ukrainian children and top of that voting to kill more innocent Russian youngsters who are forced to go and fight in Ukraine by their Nazi masters in Moscow. Air Serbia directors should hold their heads in shame.

    10. PR Guest

      You might find this New Yorker column on Ukraine/Serbia/Russia interesting, and a bit more nuanced:
      https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-the-kosovo-air-war-foreshadowed-the-crisis-in-ukraine/amp

  12. Steph Guest

    Serbia is not neutral. They clearly took Russia's side, and are still bitter at the west for putting an end to their ethnic cleansing of minorities and for recognizing Kosovo (which Russia did not). And I am not one bit surprised that they are profiteering from the war in Ukraine.

  13. Dennis Guest

    Unfortunately, these events have uncovered the extreme racist attitudes of "The West" towards Russia and Russians. And apparently it is all being tolerated by these very nations that proclaim themselves as bastions of freedom and equality. I am ashamed of this, being a dual Australian/German citizen. The bullying and hatred has to STOP if they wish to remain even remotely credible on the world stage (remembering that the "rest of the world" is watching.

    1. Never In Doubt Guest

      Dennis,

      Is being part of Putin’s troll army a paid or volunteer position?

    2. JR Guest

      I love how anyone calling out Russophobia as permissible racism is assumed to be a troll.

      Why not just say racism is acceptable, as long as you don't care for the group being marginalized.

    3. X-CCCP Member

      JR - want to try your (pro- Russian) "keyboard war" in Odessa or Kharkiv?.... The so called "free thinkers" (read PUNKS and HIPPIES) that side with Russia and call sanctions Russophobic are beyond despicable....If anything these sanctions do not go deep enough....

    4. UA-NYC Diamond

      Careful you insult the entire Faux News viewership

    5. Karo New Member

      So, you pretend to know the truth and call yourself never in doubt. I'm wondering what kind of job do you do having this approach. You call people who you disagree with trolls, but you yourself live in the information bubble nourished by the media you select to believe. Good luck with that.

    6. D3kingg Guest

      @ Never in Doubt

      So when one is incapable of having an argument presenting factual results and evidence they resort to childish insults. Noted.

    7. Steph Guest

      By far not a general position in the west. I am not sure where you get your data from? Care to share? (spare us some anectodes from the Daily Mail though).

    8. Dennis Guest

      Yes, removing all Russian language, books, products, sports people, historical figures, along with reports of Russians being refused service at hotels and restaurants is what I consider unacceptable. These have nothing to do with the current events except being used as an excuse to demonstrate hate towards Russians for whatever reason.

      And to those calling me a "troll" etc, I guess you're unable to read because I mentioned that I am Australian and German....

      Yes, removing all Russian language, books, products, sports people, historical figures, along with reports of Russians being refused service at hotels and restaurants is what I consider unacceptable. These have nothing to do with the current events except being used as an excuse to demonstrate hate towards Russians for whatever reason.

      And to those calling me a "troll" etc, I guess you're unable to read because I mentioned that I am Australian and German. And I'm embarrassed and upset because clearly the values that these countries are supposed to uphold are only applied selectively. Especially for Germans who know exactly what it's like to be on the receiving end. So excuse me for calling it out.

    9. VitaliU Guest

      What a load of bs and a typically Russian position. They have been moaning about how nobody likes them and nobody gets them for years now. How about you stop bombing hospitals and flattening cities and then the rest of us will try to be a bit more sympathetic to the hardship you are going through.

    10. Karo New Member

      Have you been as vocal when other countries were performing military operations and killing innocent people?

    11. VitaliU Guest

      @Karo, what other countries flattened entire cities, deliberately targeted hospitals and civilian shelters? Last time I recall anything like this taking place was in Syria (Russia) and Chechnya (Russia). Who else did you have in mind?

    12. Karo New Member

      @VitaliU, you are naive, uneducated, or both. Any war has plenty of innocent civilians' deaths. Any single one of them. Come on man, don't pretend to be silly. In 2020, Karabakh civilians were targeted with white phosphorus, has anyone cared? Go watch videos. Second, do you have an independent evidence that Russians deliberately bombed hospitals and civilians? Which hospitals with patients and staff, could you name one? Where is your evidence coming from? Please cite...

      @VitaliU, you are naive, uneducated, or both. Any war has plenty of innocent civilians' deaths. Any single one of them. Come on man, don't pretend to be silly. In 2020, Karabakh civilians were targeted with white phosphorus, has anyone cared? Go watch videos. Second, do you have an independent evidence that Russians deliberately bombed hospitals and civilians? Which hospitals with patients and staff, could you name one? Where is your evidence coming from? Please cite your source.

    13. VitaliU Guest

      @Karo. seriously? "do you have an independent evidence that Russians deliberately bombed hospitals and civilians". You twisted lying sob.. not much else to say

    14. Karo New Member

      @VitaliU

      Yeah man, seriously. You made the statement and can't back it up with the evidence. Are you surprised that you need to back up your words by some evidence and not just by being so vocal? And how am I lying? Dare to explain this too?

    15. VitaliU Guest

      @Karo, just in case you trill have been living under a rock with no access to Internet (vs being a Russian troll), here is a list that covers a tiny portion of all the atrocities:
      1. carpet bombing of Mariupol, incl their hospital, maternity ward, theater, residential towers. sources: UN, Greek consul in Mariupol, dozens and dozens of reports by reputable news organizations
      2. attacks on Kharkiv residential areas, incl people queueing for...

      @Karo, just in case you trill have been living under a rock with no access to Internet (vs being a Russian troll), here is a list that covers a tiny portion of all the atrocities:
      1. carpet bombing of Mariupol, incl their hospital, maternity ward, theater, residential towers. sources: UN, Greek consul in Mariupol, dozens and dozens of reports by reputable news organizations
      2. attacks on Kharkiv residential areas, incl people queueing for bread, zoo, residential building, a market. source: UN, news agency
      3. just yesterday, a shopping mall in Kyiv was hit by Russian missiles. Russian ministry of defense published a video themselves

      Since links a not allowed here, I suggest you google "Russia targeting civilians" and see what comes up. I do predict that you will say something like "this is not proof", "it wasn't Russia" or something along those lines. Russian trolls and useful fools usually do that

    16. Karo New Member

      @ VitaliU

      Just in case you don't know the difference between read and comprehend, i'll ask you these questions:
      1. How do you know that Russians hit the consulate? Why not the opposite side? Any analysis where the fire was coming from?
      2. Is it the same residential areas where Ukrainian military forces use civilians as a human shield? Tons of video evidence around, go watch.
      3. Was this mall functional or...

      @ VitaliU

      Just in case you don't know the difference between read and comprehend, i'll ask you these questions:
      1. How do you know that Russians hit the consulate? Why not the opposite side? Any analysis where the fire was coming from?
      2. Is it the same residential areas where Ukrainian military forces use civilians as a human shield? Tons of video evidence around, go watch.
      3. Was this mall functional or not?

      You can make any conclusion that fits your biased opinion as much as you want. But you showed no independent evidence. Take care and learn to be more critical about the information you're given.

    17. Icarus Guest

      It’s not racism. Russia has invaded an independent country and is bombing and murdering its citizens and forcing over 2 million to leave.

      There are many Russians who oppose this, however Putain ( I prefer the French word), wants to ban any opposition and ignore article 31 of the constitution.

      People who speak out in Russia are being beaten, imprisoned, losing jobs etc.

      The Z symbol is the new swastika. Putain...

      It’s not racism. Russia has invaded an independent country and is bombing and murdering its citizens and forcing over 2 million to leave.

      There are many Russians who oppose this, however Putain ( I prefer the French word), wants to ban any opposition and ignore article 31 of the constitution.

      People who speak out in Russia are being beaten, imprisoned, losing jobs etc.

      The Z symbol is the new swastika. Putain talks about de-nazification, which is complete c—- . Perhaps he should look in his own back garden where there are hundreds of right wing groups and in a country which actively discriminated against the LGBTQ community.

    18. Jance Guest

      Russians are now a race? LOL.

      Moron. Russian troll. Eat shit.

    19. Dennis Guest

      @Jance, hmmm lovely. Clearly you have some issues there. Hope you get some help or I'll pity those that need to be near you.

    20. guisun Gold

      Russophobia is wrong. The banning of Russian arts, literature, etc... is wrong. There are Russians fleeing to other countries should not be blocked. However, there are Russians that support Putin action in Ukraine, and often times the call themselves 'neutral' or 'apolitical' hide their support, but when you hear then, you can clearly notice where they stand as they talk/make their point.

  14. FreightCaviar Guest

    I run the page @freightcaviar on IG. About a thousand of my followers are from Serbia & from what I could notice about 60-80% of them support Russia & Putin’s war. They are staunchly anti-NATO due to the fact that NATO bombed them in 1999. They also have always nurtured a strong relationship with Russia. .

    1. Annonoymys Guest

      Being pro NATO or pro Russia has nothing to do with this...
      Bomb threats and endangering passenger airliner is terrorism and big No No! I'm not sure why even bring up everything else and try to justify this..

    2. JR Guest

      Serbia's government has condemned it in the UN yet fallen short of sanctions, so, not exactly a neutral view.

      India, South Africa, and Morocco, to name a few haven't blamed Ukraine NATO like China and Iran have. I'd say their lacking commentary is neutral as they're not taking a side

      Chinese airlines, Turkish, and the Middle Eastern 3 plus FlyDubai haven't suspended service either.

      EK has upgauged to 2 daily A380 on DME-DXB.

  15. Nick Guest

    @Never in Doubt

    Not exactly. Serbia hasn't introduced sanctions onto Russia because it relies on Russian gas and other imports (its gas company is owned by Russia's Gasprom). It has however voted to condemn the Russian invasion in the UN.

  16. Never In Doubt Guest

    "Serbia, on the other hand, has taken a more neutral stance"

    Nonsense.

    Serbia has taken a pro-Russia/Putin stance.

    1. Yolo Guest

      Not true, dont talk about what you dont know. The majority of Serbians hate the fact there is a war and dont condone it at all. The Serbian government is trying to be as neutral as possible, the president actually waited a few days to even comment on the war because of how delicate the situation is. Serbia made a strategic mistake by having Gazprom dominate the oil and gas business in the country, but...

      Not true, dont talk about what you dont know. The majority of Serbians hate the fact there is a war and dont condone it at all. The Serbian government is trying to be as neutral as possible, the president actually waited a few days to even comment on the war because of how delicate the situation is. Serbia made a strategic mistake by having Gazprom dominate the oil and gas business in the country, but then again Germany was on the same path. Besides the Gazprom monopoly there are historical and cultural ties to Russia. Aside from that, most of the investment, jobs, economy of Serbia is with the EU and Serbs look to the “west” more than the direction of Russia. So you can imagine how delicate the balance is. Serbia is not in the EU and cannot withstand rupture with Russia. Add that Serbians are increasingly frustrated at the slow process of being accepted into the EU, which is a strategic mistake by the EU not to accept the largest economy in the balkans. The way Serbians see this conflict is NATO vs Russia, add to this the fact that Belgrade was bombed by NATO in 99 during the breakup of Yugoslavia, you should understand their despise for NATO. All my friends were in Belgrade during the bombings, not an easy thing to live through. Then, Russia supports Serbia on the Kosovo issue (but so does Spain, Greece, China, and many other countries). Many more things that you or I don’t know makes taking a stance, left or right, is just not possible for any Serbian and will remain neutral. All this heat Serbia has taken for trying to be neutral is unfair. They are a small country in the middle of Europe trying to build back from being the center of Yugoslavia after a brutal breakup. Where is the hate for India, UAE, Saudi, who have not done anything either and that the US thought were allies. I talk as an American living in Serbia for the last 5 years…

    2. Giovanna Guest

      To be honest I've seen a few pro Russia marches in Serbia and not pro Ucraina.

  17. Sean M. Diamond

    This could be very lucrative for EU originating passengers due to the EU261/2004 compensation they are due as a result of delay to final destination. Ka-ching!!!

    1. Joe Guest

      Sean. Serbia is a not a member of EU

    2. Sean M. Diamond

      Of course it isn't, but passengers who originate at an EU origin airport (connecting via Belgrade) can still claim EU 261/2004 compensation if an itinerary irregularity results in a delay on arrival at their final destination.

    3. Max Guest

      @Sean
      The cash compensation is only due if the delay is the responsibility of the airline. A bomb threat is not in the responsibility of the airline, therefore passengers will not get any cash, only free drinks/meals depending on how long the delay is.

    4. Sean M. Diamond

      The bomb threat may not be the responsibility of the airline, but the decision to return to base is indeed their decision and is reasonably foreseeable in the current geopolitical situation. They could have taken additional precautions that would have allowed them to proceed with the flight without delays, but they chose not to. For that, they must pay compensation under EU 261/2004. The regulation was never intended to penalize airlines for what was their...

      The bomb threat may not be the responsibility of the airline, but the decision to return to base is indeed their decision and is reasonably foreseeable in the current geopolitical situation. They could have taken additional precautions that would have allowed them to proceed with the flight without delays, but they chose not to. For that, they must pay compensation under EU 261/2004. The regulation was never intended to penalize airlines for what was their "fault" but rather to compensate passengers for their inconvenience.

    5. Icarus Guest

      Is that seriously what you’re thinking of during a crisis with hundreds of Ukrainians murdered, how to make money, because you were delayed 4 hours ???? And no, if it’s security issue there wouldn’t be compensation.

    6. Steph Guest

      EU261/2004 does not cover delays out of the airline's control.

    7. Icarus Guest

      Ironically Israel hasn’t imposed any sanctions. El Al is still flying to Moscow

Featured Comments Most helpful comments ( as chosen by the OMAAT community ).

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Giovanna Member

Jesse, your point of Russia fearing the missiles in a neighbouring country is exactly the propaganda Putin is using to defend this invasion! Want to try again on " I'm not pro Russian"?

4
jetjock64 Guest

@ Jesse. How is providing humanitarian supplies to a people being murdered "overreacting?" Unkraine does not, and has not, hosted foreign missiles threatening Russia, so your "Mexico missile" analogy is inapposite. And, your writing reveals you as "Pro-Russian" in this instance regardless of what you might say.

4
Never In Doubt Guest

Dennis, Is being part of Putin’s troll army a paid or volunteer position?

4
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
4,523,713 Miles Traveled

25,807,500 Words Written

28,675 Posts Published