Refusing service is very common. For example, air routes in the Middle East can be very long because of countries that can't be flown over due to different alliances: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
As is evident, the whole thing is a bullshit excuse to claim plausible deniability. Exactly the same as with the Bolivian plane. The only difference is which official discourse you chose to repeat.
But I agree that what Western Europe did to Bolivian flight backfires now badly.
In both cases the pilot was lied to to capture a dissident and in neither case were the passengers in danger.
Lukashenko's propaganda will get a boost from this. Indeed, it's possibly what emboldened him to try it, safe in the knowledge that Europe and the US could only condemn it hypocritically.
The West loses moral authority when it pulls this shit - not only in their own countries but in dictatorships rhey are trying to sway.
This is a whole different category and that's why the whataboutism isn't working this time and the standard "losing moral authority" talking points sound particularly shallow and unconvicing.
No amount of propaganda can mask how shitty the life is. There's no reason whatsoever why Belarus couldn't be enjoying the same quality of life as their direct neighbours in the west, they were at the same starting point in 1991 after all. Limited travel is still possible and people know very well what life is like just across the border. Do the same job, get paid several times as much, and without getting molested by government thugs.
https://www.rt.com/usa/524710-psaki-belarus-bolivia-plane/
RT is already mocking the very same press secretary who justified doing this to get Snowden in 2013 for getting outraged now as she unconvincing deflects a question about it.
CNN won't show that on your TV but I'll bet Belarussians will get to see it.
This is not going to play out unfavorably for Lukashenko, especially if the US/Europe hits them with sanctions that bite.
>There's no reason whatsoever why Belarus couldn't be enjoying the same quality of life as their direct neighbours in the west
Realistically Ukraine is a closer model for how they'd end up if they rejected Russia and aligned more closely with the West. They are under no illusions that a quick change of allegiance will turn them into Luxembourg.
I'm not defending the callous behavior of Belarus. I'm just pointing that the UE/NATO criticism of it is shamefully hypocritical. Both are equally wrong in my eyes.
If you don't want the monkey to do something, you better make damn sure he doesn't see you doing it first.
It actually is, if you are tacitly saying "and we will let them them get away with it again, and again, and again…" but "these other guys you must help me stop".
The implicit threat of something going badly wrong if they did not land was still there.
And, in both cases it was a dissident committing acts of public service they were after. It was NOT a terrorist.
Even if you manage to convince yourself that the two actions were in no way equivalent that's not how it will play in Belarus. Lukashenko knows that downing Morales plane gives him extra moral authority among his people ("this is standard even the US does it") which is probably why he risked it.
If Lukashenko had done the same thing France had done, the plane wouldn't have been allowed to enter Belarusian airspace. That's not what he did. What he did was far more egregious and far more dangerous and threatening.
I don't think Belarussians are going to split these hairs. I suspect also that pro western politicians on Belarussian TV will be goaded into defending what the US did to Morales. They are now placed in an extremely awkward position.
If we then hit the country with sanctions over this ordinary Belarussians are going to be bitter about the hypocrisy (of which they'll be made fully aware) and it will play directly into Lukashenko's hands.
Why do you think Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, even Ukraine would not have similarly refused access if the crew had not landed in Austria of their own will?
Let’s not split hairs here when the precise same political motivation, and the precise same mechanism was used (the threat of fighters if the plane continues).
The fun part is that the whole ruse was an Assange trick, and without Snowden ever touching the aircraft, Assange got the US to tip their hand that they’re more than happy to engage in such shitty and underhanded techniques, even against a head of state.
I'm not saying I support that action - I'm only pointing out these two incidents aren't quite in the same category.
they are the same in motives and principles - in both cases a state pressure was applied to extract an undesirable to the regime citizen from a plane. Focusing on technicalities of the act doesn't resolve the issue with the nature of the act - the corrupt state acting as a bully to coerce its rightful citizen into submittance, with all available means. It shouldn't be a revelation that a scoundrel-of-a-state is ready to escalate the means to fighter jets sooner than later.
As I explained - in case of Snowden they would only have prevented him from getting to South America. They wouldn't have extracted him from the plane. If Snowden was on board, he'd simply be flown back to Russia - back to square one.
An analogy in this case would be Belarus merely prohibiting the RyanAir flight from entering their airspace.
on what basis and by what standard? What would happen to him if he landed in South America? Would he be able to land in South America?
And you know this how, were you working for the Austrian government at the time, and were you a member of the team who searched the plane?
Chances are that they would have at minimum detained him and allowed the US to start extradition proceedings. Whether they would have eventually extradited him, is not certain; but they would not have searched the plane (and sent the Austrian President to talk directly with Morales) if they were not minded to detain him.
My point was that if Snowden actually was there, they wouldn't land in Austria to begin with. Unlike the RyanAir flight, the plane wasn't forcefully grounded (under a false pretense). It just wasn't let through any further, but returning was still an option.
Source? Wasn't it a Transatlantic flight?
"And again, once that happened, the fact the Austrian government sent a search party says it all, no matter how hard you want to spin it"
This doesn't contradict nor invalidate my point at all.
Belarus disregarded convention and put passengers in the harm way. Ryanair's flight didn't have a choice. Simple as that.
if you ignore moral standing, you ignore a code of values that, when applied to fugitives of all kinds, allows you to distinguish those on the good side from those on the bad side. Your effective position in that regard is that there are no principles by which people bear responsibility for their actions, which is a basis of the notion of fairness and the whole body of knowledge that we call justice. And if there's neither responsibility nor justice, there shouldn't be a concern about the incident in the first place, as everyone is in their own right to do whatever they want, including forcing a plane to land with a means of fighter jets.
Next, to the point of "Talking about motive is meaningless. How that being carried out is important". Observe that by this standard, in an alternative universe, a hitler would have been acquited if, instead of gas chambers and concentration camps, people were given "vitamins" that would silently kill them in their sleep at their homes.
The principal way is to reject that defense for all cases, including the first one.
[1] And not just Morales' plane; this happened more often than that. Morales and Snowden were just high profile.
We are all right to be outraged by what happened in Belarus. We should also be even more outraged when our own governments,which we nominally have some control over, do similar things.
We will never know of course, but the closeness of the situation is still alarming.
Apparently the whole thing was a stunt by Julian Assange? Don't know how true that is
Definitely a bit dodgy though
And at "best", Assange could be the source of the (mis)information that Snowden may have been on board - the stunt itself was entirely pulled by the governments of France, Spain, Italy.
Countries that minutes earlier they were cleared to fly through, and had planned to fly through. Had they ignored the refusal and proceeded as planned? Same ending: fighter jets.
Let’s not pretend here that this is different.
If there was really a dastardly plot to capture the guy that wasn't even on the aircraft, they'd have gone for fighter jets, not "don't land in our country, land in the country you're flying over where a diplomat will be mildly undiplomatic towards you [or fly back to Russia completely unmolested]"
Let's be honest here: Putin and Lukashenko can get away with this sort of shit because "we" first showed that it's acceptable behaviour. This is the risk of breaking unwritten rules on the international stage: sooner or later a bad guy will do it too, and you won't have the moral high ground. This journalist, and all the others who will have to take airspace into consideration from now on, are paying for the sins of Obama.
France and Spain, notably. It was a disgusting violation.