All other european nations have declined to host him, that is until now.
So much about being independant countries...
* Snowdon revealled much about GCHQ so you can't really expect the UK government to be any more supportive of his activities than the US one was. I don't know enough detail but suspect other countries were implicated too. In those cases they're not in thrall to the US, they're simply responding according to their own interests.
* For European countries not specifically mentioned, why would any government antagonise the US when they're probably doing similar things themselves.
* Let's not kid ourselves what the Russians are really doing. This is basically trolling on an international government scale. Putin certainly doesn't believe Snowdon is a freedom fighter, and his actions around support for Snowdon are hypocritical in the extreme given the sorts of activities Russia are almost certainly engaged in themselves.
It's unrealistic to assume any government will support Snowdon as a matter of principal. They'll do so if it is popular enough with the people of their country but to me at least this doesn't feel like something that your average person is going to get worked up about compared to more domestic issues such as jobs, the cost of living and Kim Kardashian's ass.
Not only that, but you also have to ignore the things the current Russian government could, would, and has done to people like Snowden to think this has every been some altruistic move on their part.
Generally dissidents have more in common with the country they're fleeing to than the one they're fleeing from but that's not the case with Snowdon. He's not a communist sympathiser, he's closer to being an American patriot who has done something his government may disagree with because he wants his country to be better. Simply put he's in Russia because it's there or Guantanamo Bay.
On the Russian side Putin has no sympathy whatsoever with the principals Snowdon stands for. Putin is a former spy with a penchant for locking up or oppressing those who oppose him. His logic runs no further than my enemy's enemy is my friend. If Snowdon was had revealed similar information about Russian intelligence Putin would be first in line to have him locked up or worse.
For one thing, Putin don't seem to have the ambition to dominate the world like the US does and for which the NSA's global eavesdropping is an important tool.
It's worse for UK residents[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...
Now that every single person has rights, accepting them in your country also gives you a responsibility towards them.
My point was that identity controls predated travel controls and were a prerequisite for a "papers please" kind of society. Each state chooses (either directly or by will of its voters) what responsibilities it owes to non-citizens in its territory. Those responsibilities can range from almost nonexistent to very generous, but it is ultimately the choice of the state, and not the visitors to that state.
Maybe this is different matter for some flights (for example, to Israel or the USA), where the airline does additional checks on you, but you fly out to Europe and most other destinations unchecked (despite needing a visa to enter).
i.e. Russians need a visa to enter country X, you don't have one.
I've traveled quite a lot, and I'm always asked if I have authorization to enter the country I'm flying to.
Maybe they do a fast peek at your passport when letting you to board in the very end, but they can only check if some visa is physically there, since it takes them around 5 sec.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...
Snowden should have never been charged. Snowden is a hero, one who took his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with all seriousness, at great personal risk, and now his good name is tarnished and his freedom is restricted, and the people who violated their oaths and broke the law are free.
Shame, shame.
But it was a reasonable guess given that Snowden had been in Russia for a week and Evo Morales was talking about offering him asylum.
It's harder to guess right when Snowden could (in theory) board any plane leaving Moscow on any day this year or next, or the year after that.
Tracking his day-to-day movements, even if he should arrange to get to an airport in secret? Extraordinary. Do you have a link for that?
What I meant was the has a much broader choice of flights and even airports now. The odds seem to more in his favour now, should he wish to move.
Though actually, why would he? I don't see any advantage for Snowden from relocating to the same show, but in Venezuela or Argentina.
Both tasks should be business as usual for such huge secret service.
CIA had a lot of time between them and now. It also have a lot of resources and his movements are likely to be top priority for them. Them knowing he boarded a plane is real risk for him.
I do think that would be an achievement while he's under the wing of the Russian government. But what do I know?
What's really extraordinary is that gpvos knows for sure that it's not only doable but is actually happening; and is willing to share this intel with us. Or they seem to know; no citation to support the claim has been provided yet. It could just be internet BS.
For the rest: what watwut said in a nearby comment. I'm just extrapolating from things like the Evo Morales incident.
Submarines would be too expensive. He's not worth that much to Russia, Argentina or any other country.
Granted, a boat trip is longer, which is more time for things to (be made to) go wrong, but if a ship is traveling through international waters, are there any grounds for another country to board it and seize its passengers?
(With a follow up: is there a sea route between Russia and Friendly Country X which doesn't pass through waters claimed by another country?)
Legal grounds? Does it matter?
Suddenly, pirates, out of fucking nowhere.
EDIT:
Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if some "random" thing happened to Snowden if he tried to go by a boat. Just like Assange became an sex offender out of the blue the moment he seriously pissed off the US government.
I think the issue was, what was considered rape in Sweden was basically just being a misogynistic douche in other countries.
However, he would have known this well before going into the country, it's not like they created a new law just for him.
I doubt the US is so subtle as to use pirates. People seem to have these grand conspiracies about how the government is like a ninja...it's not.
They will simply send the police around and arrest him. Seriously, why are they going to bother with cloak and daggers for? This isn't a Bond movie. They will simply arrest him, and charge him with espionage charges since...err..that's sort of what he did?
Vladivostok, which is very close to Japan, and would be nearly impossible to not go through either South Korean or Japanese waters. Neither of which are friendly to him.
Sevastopol, Which requires going through the Turkey, and then either through the straights of Gibraltar or Egypt.
St Petersburg, Which requires passing through Denmark.
If I were in his shoes, I'd probably try to charter a Jet coming out of Vladivostok. If that wasn't possible, I think I'd choose the Sevastopol/Gibraltar route by sea.
http://thediplomat.com/2011/10/chinas-overhyped-submarine-threat/
>The Song-class vessel, displacing 2,200 tons, was close enough to hit the Kitty Hawk with one of its 18 homing torpedoes. None of the carrier’s roughly dozen escorting warships detected the Song until it breached the surface.
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4#t=9m58sMy point was that if Snowden were to travel by plane then there is a high probability that it could be forced to be grounded and Snowden captured then sent to Gitmo.
But if he were to travel by submarine, he would be untouchable from the US Navy.
It's silly to think the US would get into a military engagement with Russia just to capture Snowden. At this point, he's not that valuable to either side, except as a propaganda tool. Hell, Putin would probably do a happy dance if the US were stupid enough to do something like that. The sabre rattling in the Ukraine has made him very popular - one can only imagine what a revived cold war rivalry would do for him; in the short term, at least.
Pretty much the best way to travel under the radar.
He cannot risk flying. The Bolivian incident showed just how powerful the US is when it comes to Snowden and flying. They forced down a presidential jet for god's sake! They were willing to risk a massive diplomatic incident and outcry (toned down) by doing so.
He could travel by boat somewhere quietly, but (in my opinion) countries that have offered him some degree of asylum, such as Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela are not stable or strong enough to oppose the will of the United States of America. If I was Snowden I couldn't imagine anything worse than landing in Bolivia, only to find that two years later a pro-US president miraculously wins the election. The US-CIA have a rather impressive record of subverting elections in South and Central America, so he would be a fool to risk it.
Therefore, he is confined to Russia until Russia finds a reason to become the USA's best friend. He can travel overland to any country that is pro-Russia and protected by Russia. That's about it. Most of them are (ex)war zones.
Considering the current geo-politics, that scenario is highly unlikely. The status quo is likely to remain, as long as oil, gas, and other natural resources are fought over by the world's major league countries.
The US has little (in comparison) natural resources, whilst Russia has more than any other country. Long term, the power scales will tip. The only thing that may change that is a pro-USA Russian government.
Oh, and pigs might fly over the Kremlim before that happens.
The US could rapidly turn Cuban relations around if they wanted something like say 'A Snowden'.
He is probably safer in Russia than anywhere else, until he pisses them off. The smart money says he isn't about to do that of his own volution.
Some non-Russians who visit Russia need an exit visa. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exit-visa.asp
------ My original post was getting heavily downvoted, even after the first edit. Here it is, with the first edit. I've ROT13d it to stop people down-voting the (now corrected) mistake.
Fbzr angvbaf erdhver gurve pvgvmraf gb trg crezvffvba gb yrnir gur pbhagel. Ehffvn vf bar bs gurfr pbhagevrf.
RQVG: V jbeqrq guvf ernyyl onqyl. Ehffvn hfrq gb erdhver vgf pvgvmraf gb trg rkvg ivfnf. Ohg Ehffvn qbrf fgvyy erdhver aba-pvgvmraf gb unir rkvg ivfnf. uggc://jjj.vairfgbcrqvn.pbz/grezf/r/rkvg-ivfn.nfc
No, Russians don't require a permission to leave the country.
You are just babbling some made-up factoids.
Sincerely,
A Russian citizenBut you are right in Snowdens case, since foreigners resident in Russia need an 'exit visum' to be allowed to do trips abroad, and clearly Snowden is one of those.
So Snowden needs permission to be allowed to leave.
The only exception if you work for government and have some sort of security clearance.
The Crimea is probably the safest place he could travel to at present!