If you're considered an enemy of the state you're not safe on any side. Some countries terrorize their own people, others terrorize someone else's people. As I said in the past, after moving between democracy and dictatorship several times in my life I can say that it mainly boils down to how well your interests align with the interests of the one(s) in power. The main difference is that if your interests don't align you'll have a much harder life in a dictatorship than in a democracy.

But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.

> But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.

They already did that. It's funny that this is considered ok.

This is precisely why all the international responses to the current incident focus on using the military interception rather than the principle of forcing a plane to land just to get your hands on one individual.

EU countries like Spain and Italy denied access to their airspace to a diplomatic flight in what was essentially equally immoral stunt as the one Belarus pulled. Only with the added "bonus" of showing that being a diplomat means nothing. Now the same countries have to walk the fine line of accusing the enemy while not incriminating the frenemy.

> But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

Do you get assigned the role of dissident at birth? Or do we rather choose it based on living in places with particular regimes? A more valid question would be: where would you rather live if you were glorifying Azov brigades? The answer would apparently be: the West. And you know where Snowden chose to live and why. So it appears that people more aligned with my (and generally accepted) values tend to prefer Russia and its allies, with a good reason.

> And you know where Snowden chose to live and why.

Nitpick: Snowden chose to live in South America actually (Bolivia or Equador) he was just in transit in Moscow but he was just never given the right to onboard the plane again after the US canceled his passport.

Do you think that Snowden prefers to live in Russia because of his values or because of his safety?

Because his values made him a dissident in the West, where he is in danger.

A dissident in the US and its buddies, specifically. Iceland is still "the west" and was where Snowden said he'd have liked to move, but they'd have needed to offer him asylum and for that he'd have been required to apply in person and he was just not in the right place at the right time for that to happen (since he had concerns at the time that it would have been easier for the US to lean on Iceland than Hong Kong).

Magnitsky says hello. Or rather he doesn't.

He's dissident because he breached the laws and revealed secret information. Russia has similar laws and he would be convicted in Russia for similar acts. And, I guess, in any other country.

"I love treason but hate a traitor" -- Julius Caesar

> So it appears that people more aligned with my (and generally accepted) values tend to prefer Russia and its allies

This is objectively false, since there are way more refugees chosing to go to Russia and its allies (Snowden and who else?) than the other way round (thousands every year).

The quantity says nothing about the reasons.

There are plenty of folks who have left Russia for the US because they can't stand the corruption. Perhaps you just haven't met any of them.

If that's their only reason, they're in for a big surprise when they find out about corruption in the West.