How does this change the main point? (That he got stuck in Russia during transit due to invalid travel documents.)

The comment was:

> He only had to take asylum in Russia because the US revoked his passport and prevented him from going anywhere else.

That implies that it's the fault of the US government that he is currently in Russia (I think it also forwards the misconception that Snowden was in Russia when his passport was revoked). He didn't have to flee to Hong Kong to begin with. When the US government requested extradition and revoked his passport in order to keep him inside Hong Kong, he fled using what turned out to be an invalid travel document. Snowden has ended up in purely out of his own actions. The US isn't preventing him from traveling - he can walk down to the embassy at any time he wants and get a plane ticket home.

> he can walk down to the embassy at any time he wants and get a plane ticket home.

US English must have diverged quite a lot from UK English if 'home' now means 'prison'.

Thanks for clarifying. Still leaves him stranded in Russia if the Ecuadorian document wasn't enough to get on the connect flight to wherever.

According to that article, the Ecuadorean travel document was only revoked five days after it was used. Pretty much by definition, if your travel documents are accepted and let you travel, they are valid.

No, according to the article, it was issued by the Ecuadorian consul in London, who issued the document because he felt it was an emergency and he couldn't get in contact with the Ecuadorian president. The Ecuadorian president clarified several days later that the consulate in London did not have the authority to issue that document. The safe passage document wasn't revoked, it was never valid to begin with.