Hacker News Reader

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

RT's current approach seems to be to focus on Protasevich's alleged role as a propagandist for the neo nazi azov brigades in donbass and, of course, the whole Snowden/Morales affair.

Western news media outlets, by contrast, seem to be lionizing the journalist's role in the Belarus protests, but at some point I imagine they will have address the above two points. Silence is too awkward.

It is interesting to diff the propaganda from both sides here, especially since domestic propaganda value appears to have been a key component of why Lukashenko chose to do this.

View on HN

> RT's current approach seems to be to focus on Protasevich's alleged role as a propagandist for the neo nazi azov brigades in donbass and, of course, the whole Snowden/Morales affair.

They're deflecting because Lukashenko's official narrative (the bomb story) is too absurd even for them to peddle. They can't really say that the plane wasn't hijacked so instead they're falling back to "well he had it coming". This is definitely a new low for the Russia-Western relations, they normally bother with at least some plausible deniability.

>This is definitely a new low for the Russia-Western relations

FYI Belarus is a country rather than a region in Russia.

It's a country with _very_ close relationships to Russia. Up to the point where Russian riot police was participating in suppressing protests in Belarus. If it was not for Russian support Lukashenko would probably have been overthrown in 2020.

It is a client state of Russia and while Lukashenko might not be a full puppet of Putin, he displays puppet like tendencies.

Sure, and chickens are birds.

They all but admitted that the bomb story was concocted from the beginning.

I don't think that part will change any minds.

Not on RT, they haven't. Pick wisely?

No, they absolutely have:

"The Ryanair flight from Greece to Lithuania was compelled to land in Minsk on Sunday while traveling through Belarusian airspace, on the basis of what appears to be a fraudulent claim that a bomb might be on board."

Is what they wrote this morning.

Both sides do propaganda, but where would you prefer to live if you were a dissident?

Do you get assigned the role of dissident at birth? Or do we rather choose it based on living in places with particular regimes? A more valid question would be: where would you rather live if you were glorifying Azov brigades? The answer would apparently be: the West. And you know where Snowden chose to live and why. So it appears that people more aligned with my (and generally accepted) values tend to prefer Russia and its allies, with a good reason.

Do you think that Snowden prefers to live in Russia because of his values or because of his safety?

Because his values made him a dissident in the West, where he is in danger.

He's dissident because he breached the laws and revealed secret information. Russia has similar laws and he would be convicted in Russia for similar acts. And, I guess, in any other country.

"I love treason but hate a traitor" -- Julius Caesar

Magnitsky says hello. Or rather he doesn't.

A dissident in the US and its buddies, specifically. Iceland is still "the west" and was where Snowden said he'd have liked to move, but they'd have needed to offer him asylum and for that he'd have been required to apply in person and he was just not in the right place at the right time for that to happen (since he had concerns at the time that it would have been easier for the US to lean on Iceland than Hong Kong).

> So it appears that people more aligned with my (and generally accepted) values tend to prefer Russia and its allies

This is objectively false, since there are way more refugees chosing to go to Russia and its allies (Snowden and who else?) than the other way round (thousands every year).

The quantity says nothing about the reasons.

There are plenty of folks who have left Russia for the US because they can't stand the corruption. Perhaps you just haven't met any of them.

If that's their only reason, they're in for a big surprise when they find out about corruption in the West.

> And you know where Snowden chose to live and why.

Nitpick: Snowden chose to live in South America actually (Bolivia or Equador) he was just in transit in Moscow but he was just never given the right to onboard the plane again after the US canceled his passport.

If you're considered an enemy of the state you're not safe on any side. Some countries terrorize their own people, others terrorize someone else's people. As I said in the past, after moving between democracy and dictatorship several times in my life I can say that it mainly boils down to how well your interests align with the interests of the one(s) in power. The main difference is that if your interests don't align you'll have a much harder life in a dictatorship than in a democracy.

But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.

> But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.

They already did that. It's funny that this is considered ok.

This is precisely why all the international responses to the current incident focus on using the military interception rather than the principle of forcing a plane to land just to get your hands on one individual.

EU countries like Spain and Italy denied access to their airspace to a diplomatic flight in what was essentially equally immoral stunt as the one Belarus pulled. Only with the added "bonus" of showing that being a diplomat means nothing. Now the same countries have to walk the fine line of accusing the enemy while not incriminating the frenemy.

> But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

I had a look at the RT's web site (in English) when the hijacking happened. I found them being quite objective.

I did not analyze everything but they mentioned the reactions of western countries, the fact that Protasevich was arrested etc.

When extensively travelling in the ME 12 years ago, I often watched Al-Jazeera (in English) and I di not find anything outrageous either.

So either I did not read closely, or there is some subliminal text that I did not notice, or I was not interested enough to be the right target (just for the record, I think that the Belorussian govt is completely fucked up and we (France) should do whatever we can to kick them in the ass, more than just closing the airspace (and yes, I do not know what)).

German Tagesschau has published an interview with an aviation lawyer about the difference between the current incident and the Morales thingy. TLDR: difference between a scheduled flight (protected by international treaty) and diplomatic flights, which need separate approval of the countries they're flying over. [0]

[0] https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/luftfahrtrecht-zwan... (in german)

Good to know that it is legal to force Putin's plane to land in order to hold him responsible for various "treatments" of dissidents!

I'm positive that the West will make use of that loophole at the first opportunity.

Legally, there may be a difference. Morally, not so much, imo. The Morales thingy should have never happened. EU needs to grow a spine.

"Article 5: The aircraft of states, other than scheduled international air services, have the right to make flights across state's territories and to make stops without obtaining prior permission. *However, the state may require the aircraft to make a landing.*"

He seems to be arguing that this clause was broken in spirit or something. I can't quite make out the finer details though, but it's not exactly a slam dunk violation - the treaty does say they may require the aircraft to make a landing and they did.

The merits or demerits of the individual should be irrelevant. Belarus seized a European civilian plane. I believe this is unprecedented. (Blowing them out of the sky aside.)

If this were an American plane, I would fully consider it an act of war and make a lot of noise to that extent. If it were an American citizen, it would be worth—even if solely to draw a line—a tactical incursion to attempt exfiltration. But it’s not. We don’t have Nordstream or Orban or all the other capitulations Brussels (and Berlin) have made that create a geopolitical vulnerability with an actor willing to exploit them. The situation is thus properly complicated.

The only mitigating factor to Minks’s credit is Protasevich having never secured EU citizenship.

Hate the player, not the game. The EU counties are highly likely(see, I adopted the Euro-Atlantic speak here) to be involved in trying to overthrow Lukashenko. Like him or not, but he acts in his own right.

Belarus are arguing that grounding a head of state is worse. The West is saying that grounding a civilian plane and escorting with fighter jets is worse.

I think people who are fully one one side of this are fully convinced by one of those. I don't think it's swaying people on the fence, however.

The individual does matter. It doesn't look great to start naming streets after arrested neo-nazis. If that story has legs (unclear if it does) this will really not endear Belarussians to the West and will play directly into Putin's narrative, which is that we enthusiastically support neonazis who fight Russia.

>Silence is too awkward.

Are you surprised? This is the usual behavior of the Western "free" and "independent" media. Double standards in action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com