Denying access to airspace of a private plane feels a little different than forcing a commercial plane to land with threat (and real actions) of violence. The level of crimes involved is also an important distinction. What Snowden did is illegal in pretty much every single country in the world (if committed against that country). On the other hand, what Protasevich did, many countries have laws to protect such actions. I'm not saying I agree with how either situation was handled (or laws involved, etc), but a 1:1 correlation between the two is ignoring important details.

I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad."

I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.

The denying permission vs kidnapping distinction does seem important though, regardless of motives doesn’t it?

To me it seems minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still trickery. I assume that in the Snowden case the permissions were withdrawn precisely to force a landing in a country where Snowden could be arrested. Belarus doesn't have the same alliances, so they resort to dirtier trickery to accomplish the same goal

It definitely is not. Denying someone access to airspace the way they did for Snowden to a gov’t level official is the equivalent of a bouncer stopping just the head of a competing club from entering - so the cops could grab him. Not seen as supportive, but not that crazy.

What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your house at gun point - and then dragging the one you thought had spray painted your house a week earlier into your basement never to be seen again.

There is zero expectation that someone would or could use state level military assets to force a civil airplane flying under legal authorization and long standing agreements with no expectation of it landing in your country, under the flag of another nation, to grab someone you like.

It’s not like it hasn’t been possible, it’s just exceptionally hostile to everyone else and in violation of pretty much every international norm.

I don't disagree with you. Yes, one is worse than the other.

The point that I'm making is that the distinction is dwarfed by the baseness of the paradigm itself: politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction. Anyway you want to look at it this happened in both cases, and we shouldn't be celebrating "ooh, but technically, we just withdrew permissions so it's not that bad is it?"

But that is my point - the morales flight incident wasn't an airliner. Near as I can dig up, there is no evidence anyone but Morales was on it and staff. It's more equivalent to stopping an officials car (via roadblock) than the hijacking of a civil airliner at gunpoint (or fighter jet point).

It's not a distinction without a difference, these are big differences with many non-subtle distinctions.

Laws don't really work in countries like Russia or Belarus. Vague laws that encompass anything under the sun + complete lack of judiciary independence means that laws are whatever Lukashenko, Putin, or a careerist prosecutor (who needs convictions) wants them to be in a particular case. There is a saying in Russian speaking countries "Был бы человек, а статья найдётся" which can be roughly translated as "For every man, there's a law to convict him under".

They do it more often than you think. For another one see this https://112.international/society/belavias-passenger-plane-f... . Precisely the same action but by the good guys, so no shit-storm in the media.

Every time someone makes this comparison all it does is strengthen Lukashenko and Putin's propaganda machine. It doesn't help Protasevich, it doesn't help Snowden, and it doesn't create room for any positive political change.

If the comparison to a recent event is strengthening the propaganda machine of those regimes, that says a lot more about said recent event than it does about those regimes.

It's an apt comparison. And if we don't like the consequences, all the more reason to reflect on our own actions

How is it apt? In one case a fake bomb threat and a fighter jet force land a commercial flight for political reasons of a despot. on the other side refusal to allow air travel through sovereign air space of democratic countries, and was "downed" after failing to comply. This is far from apt comparison.

politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction

You are assuming there is a neutral third party. Yes, the comparison does strengthen Putin's propaganda machine. But not mentioning it strengthens the US propaganda machine. You are picking sides either way.

Not mentioning it does nothing. The US propaganda machine is not hurt in any way by mentioning it. It happened nearly a decade ago and is not really a similar situation in any way except that it involved a plane.

It wasn't similar because Snowden wasn't actually on that plane.

If he was, you think he wouldn't be arrested and would just fly with Morales to Bolivia? The agents that searched the plane was just there to say hi?

> Not mentioning it does nothing.

I don't understand how you assert this.

It is mostly testing Biden administration. First Israel now Belarus. Probably more disruption is coming as so far responses are weak.