hoistop (thanks for the follow-up question)
Three quick points in reply. They're about language, legalities, and realities.
As to language, let it be recalled that although English and French are widely regarded as the most international languages, and although English has a 'standard' role in civil aviation globally, there isn't a monopoly on comprehension. In fact, in many situations I have encountered in the realm of civil aviation organizations with a global focus, non-native English speakers very often have provided much better and more meaningful clarity than otherwise. (I don't want to launch into more of a rant about the decline, or disappearance, of foreign language requirements in U.S. secondary and post-secondary schools.... but I could, rant about it, I mean.)
Now, to the main point of this, the legalities. I think one would have to be well-versed - and probably well-versed indeed - in the European Commission rules, statutes and regulations, as well as the "interagency" set-up as between EASA and the EC, and possibly other components of the institutional governmental structures, to give a definitive answer. Whether or not the current Safety Directive is legally binding -- we can read its language and draw our own conclusion, that it is a stronger recommendation that the one that came before it. But: is this form of language in the SD the form in which something mandatory needs to be expressed, in accordance with how the EC, EASA structure is organized? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe this is as mandatory, in terms of language, as EASA is allowed to get. And maybe it actually means a more mandatory instruction than the simple words suggest. (I missed that particular day in law school when so many of my peers and predecessors obviously were instructed never to say, "I don't know.")
But at the same time..... I think in context, the SD approaches a mandatory instruction. And I'm not relying on anything in the structure set up as between EASA and the EC, the EU. Instead I'm reading the SD in context - in the context of the previous SD; in context of the very specific reference to the investigation being started by the ICAO Council; and in light of what, as a non-pilot, I still feel confident is a broad and emphatic consensus among global civil aviation professionals that the actions of the Belarus government in this situation were unprecedented and completely wrongful. It is almost like saying, Mike Tyson. You know, everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth. Every EASA rule and process is well and good, until something like this has occurred. And so regardless of the specific words written in the current SD, count this SLF/atty as reading - and understanding it - as a requirement on the part of Member States.