It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same.

Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested.

And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.

I don't believe those making the analogy are sympathetic to or uncritical of the Belarus government, rather they are saying "I told you so" or "the Morales incident set a precedent, surprise!". Now, Belarus might have pulled this stunt even if the Morales incident had never happened, and that's a fine counterpoint, but you really should not ascribe malice to those who point to the similarities in the two incidents because it's clearly not [always] the case. Should I ascribe malice to your ascribing malice? Please be polite.

> Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.

Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Both are casus belli. Attacks on ships carrying heads of state are particularly problematic absent war, so technically the Morales incident was the worse one, yes (though, of course, if he'd been carrying Snowden then that would in itself have been casus belli), but that does not excuse attacks on civilians.

The thing is that there have been many incidents like this, not just the Snowden incident. Israel has done this kind of thing before, dating back to decades ago (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries territory, too).

I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover.

> Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships.

Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. But the reality in statecraft is that this is rarely the actual reason and there's much more in depth and structural reasons for the start of war.

Sure, but I don't think people mentioning the much-more-recent Morales incident are doing it because they're shills for Belarus. I seriously doubt Glenn freaking Greenwald is a shill for Belarus just because he wrote an article about the two incidents -- would anyone argue that he is?

> [...] (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries [...]

Yes, indeed, Israel's kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina was justified. Snowden is not a Nazi war criminal though, so the comparison only goes so far -- Snowden -at least thus far- is a much more pedestrian sort of criminal than a war criminal. It is possible to feel that the kidnapping of a war criminal abroad is justified and also feel that the kidnapping of a mere spy abroad is not.

> I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover.

Have they mentioned it? Anyways, it's easy propaganda for them, isn't it. Sure, it can't be avoided to give the other side some propaganda wins from time to time.

> Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. [...]

Not only. It was also the reason that the Marines exist, as they fought a small war in Tripoli over kidnapping of civilians. I'm sure there are many examples. Anyways, my point is just that we can't blanket condemn people who link these two incidents as shills for Lukashenko.

Greenwald has been shilling for Russia for years now, so it's not a stretch that this would extend to Belarus as well?

> they are saying "I told you so"

To whom? No-one on this site was instrumental in deciding to hinder Morales's flight, and I doubt many supported the action at the time. It's obnoxious and comes off like trolling for an argument. Dispassionately making the link is one thing, but most of the comments of this form I've seen are borderline tu quoque nationalist trolling.

>> And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action.

You've made a huge assumption there, and characterisation, and that's exactly the problem. I and many others are not sympathetic or uncritical of the action at all. I'm just critical of not having debate about the differences between this and other actions and removing the debate.

I'd say, yes, it was a civilian airliner. It affects more people. However to do it to a private jet too shows precedent to abandon international norms. Nobody being arrested is merely because Snowdon wasn't aboard. If he was, he'd have been arrested. And the diversion of any plane to an airspace where the arrest of someone on board can take place by a foreign power, is ultimately what is the issue here isn't it? And there are enough obvious parallels that at least we have the discussion, not just remove the discussion forthwith.

Perhaps the OP was frustrated because this has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads, so may be you should check them out, but the two incidents are completely different.

Morales flight was denied the airspace in advance before it approached any of those airspace. They could go back to Russia if preferred. They chose to land in Vienna. Ryannair's flight was only informed of the fake bomb threat when it was already in Belarus's airspace. They were escorted by military jets. They didn't have a choice.

Morales incident, while being a bullying action, is legal, since countries have exclusive right over their airspace and can allow or deny any flight at their discreetion. At no time passengers were in danger, not to mention they were free to pick another course of action such as going back to Russia. No military jets involved.

Ryannair incident is unprecedented. Belarus hijacked another country's aircraft, faked bomb threats for their own gain. Passengers were at risk, as with any time a flight is disrupted by military jets. No wonder EU's reaction is swift and strong.

There is a bit of a difference between using a legal framework to enforce a policy (the parties know what to expect) and arbitrarely chasing a commercial jet with a MiG (the parties don't know what to expect).

The tactics are not remotely the same.

Because most of those comments are of the form "the US did this once, so why is everyone upset about Belarus doing this?" as if trying to point out some hypocrisy, or defend Belarus. (I can't read the original comment now since it's flagged, so maybe it's not such a comment.)

Which presupposes that the readers are "supporters" of either the US/EU or Belarus/Russia. As if geopolitical conversations are sports matches, and nuanced observations based on dispassionate logical thought and not political or national affiliation are not possible. Gag me with a spoon.

At best, these comments derail the conversation. At worst, they are trolling or borderline nationalist propaganda. Either way they drag down the quality of discussion here on HN.

Pointing out that the US's earlier actions gave Belarus cover to "justify" such actions is at least mildly interesting as dispassionate geopolitical conversation, but that's not what most of these comments are.

>> the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane

I hadn't heard about that. Any good references?

Edit: Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

A better one https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...

If it's better then use it to improve the wikipedia entry, unless you run into NPOV issues.

If one is not really up to par as a wikipedia editor, the more informative link could be dropped on the talk page for the main article. Then maybe an editor will incorporate it.

It's now flagged. A comment saying that the forced landing of the President of Bolvia's plane in Austria, due to the US belief that Snowdon was on board, could be somehow relevant to the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus of someone the government believes is damaging them.

Free speech in action...

There was no such forced landing, the plane had enough fuel to return to its departure airport.

My information is different (e.g. Greenwalds account: Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna.)

If the pilot had enough fuel to reach his original proposed refuelling stop in the Canary Islands, he had enough fuel to get back to Russia

(The cockpit audio suggests the pilot actually was worried about the amount of fuel he had left as he reported an issue with his fuel gauge, but "Morales forced to land by minor technical issue" isn't quite as compelling a story...)