Countries that refuse access to their airspace will generally send fighter jets if you violate it.

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.

And yet permission to fly over their airspace wasn't revoked while they were in their airspace. If they had wanted to do so, they could have. They did not. So I don't see the sense in constructing this strawman of "oh but it meant they could've scrambled fighters".

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.

shrug The net result was the same - a plane was grounded through deception so a dissident could be arrested. Nobody was hurt by either action.

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.