Don't forget that the country that started to divert planes to catch democrat dissidents was the United States. But Snowden wasn't in the plane.
Details here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...
Details here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...
This is just laughably spun. That airplane was fueled up for a flight To South America. Pretending like somehow it had to go through Germany or else run out of gas is just ridiculous. Turn around, fuel up in Moscow where you took off from, and fly back to the east if you want. It's an airplane. Don't be silly.
And it's a digression anyway. Even if this would have prevented Morales from reaching Bolivia in that jet, it's STILL not the same thing as forcing his plane down with threat of arms, forcing an evacuation, and arresting his passengers.
I can't understand how such a contrived equalization is spread in so many different forums.
The other replies make excellent, well-sourced points for the distinction of the Morales and Belarusian situations, so I won't repeat them. It seems easy to understand and prove this distinction.
I'm genuinely curious if this whataboutist reasoning could be contributed to by an active campaign to muddy the Belarus discussion or just anti-west/pro-anarchy idealisms.
1) Snowden had already been charged at that point and was running from the law. Morales's plane was diverted because it was believed to be providing passage to a criminal. While I don't know what Snowden did was right or wrong, it is clear that Snowden broke laws. His intentions might have been good but he broke some very serious laws.
2) Roman Protasevich, on the other hand, is a blogger. He hasn't released any state secrets that he swore an oath to protect.
Thought experiment: what could have been the immediate consequences of disregarding that rescindment and continuing with the flightplan as filed?
The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO. It is fairly obvious that not letting someone enter is very different from letting enter and then coerce.
Not sure if it's that simple, the plane has limited fuel and if they are banned from most of Europe's airspace on the way back it might become inevitable to choose between unauthorized entry or crashing down. And that's assuming Russia would also not ban them, which is also a risk when you're already in the air.
It was really rather close to an act of war. There's a reason the Austrians rushed their president out of bed to go have tea with Morales while he waited.
Great way to start a debate.
Snowden case is worse than Protasevich. They diverted a plane of a president of another country. Snowden dennounced a government that was breaking the law. He wasn't convicted of anything, so he as innocent.
The two cases are a menace to democratic societies. I'm appalled that someone can find one terrible and the other one something normal. Great example of double standards.