I am sorry but this is a slightly frustrating conversation because we are losing the forests for the trees. In both cases, an aircraft was grounded based on a suspicion. In one case, the official reason was "technical reasons", in another it was due to "bomb threat". In both cases, the official reasons given were a ruse. That is the key focus here in both cases. The question of forcefully grounding an airplane for ulterior purposes with a different official reason. In one case, the scenario didn't achieve the end result because Snowden was not on the plane. In another case, it did play out because Protasevich was on the flight. Just because the results were different, doesn't mean both acts weren't egregious. In both cases, a country used their muscle to land a flight.
Yes. These were both dick moves, but I think they are very different. In one it was a democratically elected government closing the airspace through diplomatic pressure, indirectly resulting in the pilot having land the plane. The plane in question was a private jet not in commercial traffic, so it wasn't full of people.
In this case a dictatorship forced a commercial plane traveling between two EU/nato countries, full of people, to land in a country without a transparent or independent justice system. The grounding was made with a false bomb threat from the plane and actions by Belo(?)rusian agents on the plane intervening. There was no ruse in the Austria situation - the technical reasons were reported by the pilot. The US pressure was to close the french/spanish airspace.
Again, both dick moves, but to me completely different things.
If the US realized Snowden was crossing US airspace and diverted a plane full of people flying between (say) Brazil and Canada to land in the US by using US agents to cause trouble on board or make false bomb threats to force the plane down, I'd be almost as upset (Almost, because I give democratic governments more of a pass, and because the US justice system is at least slightly more transparent and independent, although a Snowden process certainly would show its terrible side)
> In both cases, a country used their muscle to land a flight.
Absolutely. But in one it was diplomatic muscle or "soft power" from a democratic country. In the other it wasn't.
