>Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel.
Seems like a trivial difference. Denying access to your airspace comes with the implicit threat of fighter interception.
Seems like a trivial difference. Denying access to your airspace comes with the implicit threat of fighter interception.
The Morales jet was warned ahead of time in a legal way, not intercepted and forced to land in an unintended destination.
No persons from the Morales jet were detained.
One is an lawful act (perhaps imoral in some way) , and one is an arbitrary act outside of any lawful framework . I hope this clears the confusion.
It's not that Belarus' actions are admissable. It's that the West is acting in a hypocritical way.
If Belarus had as much power as the US, they surely would have followed the same route and forced all the surrounding nations to close their airspace. The end result would be the same.
The stark difference between the way the West does it is that you have a choice whenever to comply or pick an alternative, whereas Belarus left no choice.
EU, as a matter of routine, forbids certain persons from entering their airspace, has refused entry countless times to planes (some of them airborne) based on passenger manifests. Nobody would have batted an eye if Belarus would have done the same.
Pointing a gun (armed MiG fighter) at a civilian airplane based on who is a passenger using a deceptive pretext, outside laws and regulations, is several orders of magnitudes worse than lawful application of rules. If you fail to see why, read about habeas corpus.
And I'm hindsight Austria probably regrets they didn't deny access too, because then the potato wouldn't have landed on their soil.
It's not very bold to say: "pass don't involve me", but it's not necessarily a conspiracy to intercept a plane. That would have to involve a lot of people, and would probably leak..