The pilots could report that they are having technical difficulties and are unable to override the current route programmed into the autopilot. They are also have issues disengaging the autopilot. So they are "forced" to continue their flight on their pre-filed flight plan.
Any direction from ATC would be replied with "Unable":
* https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-you-s...
* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-th...
* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-...
* https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clear...
Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can do about it.
So repercussions tend to range from nothing, through wagging fingers, slaps on the wrist, to sanctions, UN resolutions, UN-sanctioned wars, or if you really piss someone off, non-sanctioned wars.
I don’t think Belarus will be invaded, and I guess Russia would veto any particularly nasty move in the UN, so really this leaves stern words and some unilateral sanctions against the Lukshenko regime. Doesn’t seem like overwhelming penalty (though well-targeted and enforced sanctions can bite quite badly).
And MiG-29 sprinkled same kind of diplomacy here - they weren't shot down, they just were diplomatically notified that in their best interest is to land down. See, no force, pure diplomacy.
Denying Morale's plane permission was an act of diplomacy, albeit a very uncommon one and one in pursuit of an unjust goal.
Forcing down a foreign airplane on an international flight to arrest someone on it is an act of war. Sorry.
Same thing happened on 9/11 - US chose do land all aircrafts, and in case that anyone disobeyed orders it would be promptly shot down - foreign planes or not, it didn't matter in slightest.
Second: they let the plane in on a flight plan that clearly took it to Vilnius. Again, that's false pretenses.
Per the analogy above: consider a consulate telling someone "sure, you can board this plane without your passport, it's fine" and then arresting the person for a visa violation on landing.
Looks like they learned from the best.
Yeah, this is trolling.
A major international incident (the head of state of one nation violating the airspace of another) that completely and utterly dwarfs whatever nonsense was going on with Snowden. I know it's hard for geeks here to understand, but Snowden just isn't that important.
Again: he wasn't even on the plane. And Morales apparently had no intention of putting him on there. He was just pissed off that no one trusted him about that.
The Ryanair plane didn't deliberately violate the airspace of Belarus in violation of withdrawn permission, they filed a flight plan to Vilnius just like they had every day for years and years. It was an airliner on a scheduled flight.
Your counterfactual involving a deliberate invasion of another country seems... extraordinarily weird. I mean, yes, countries defend their airspace when it's invaded by other nations in violation of established treaties. Duh. That is not what happened yesterday at all and you fucking know it. Stop this.
Clearly what happened here is that the fake bomb threat was an excuse, and the purpose of the interceptor there was to demonstrate to the crew of the airplane that the use of force was a possibility. This plane was "forced down" by any reasonable use of the term.
> This reminds me of force landing Bolivian president’s plane in the EU flying from Moscow when they thought Edward Snowden was on the plane.
Had to correct this elsewhere: there was no forced landing there at all. They were denied airspace privileges to cross most of western europe, which isn't the same thing at all. They landed in a friendly-ish nation, and were never boarded by anyone hostile or otherwise intercepted by law enforcement.
What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may not travel here if you carry this man"), not force.