5 ms·
> to not allow him to be transited through their airspace. This is exactly what Belarus just did. The US and it's allies are now strongly objecting that it's i
by mrandish 5y ago
> to not allow him to be transited through their airspace.
This is exactly what Belarus just did. The US and it's allies are now strongly objecting that it's illegal and improper to do exactly what they've previously done.
The idea of mutually agreeing to allow commercial transportation aircraft to transit your airspace is supposed to be that this is not done. It is hugely hypocritical for the US to have used this same tactic, even if done through proxies.
- bandyaboot 5y agoNot allowing transit into and through your airspace is not exactly the same thing as allowing transit into your airspace then forcing them down in your country.
- throwaway21_ 5y agoIt's not exactly the same but it's almost the same - multiple countries synchronously closing their airspace so plane can't just go around single one thus basically forcing plane down as it could run out of fuel is quite similar to faking bomb alert in order to force plane down. Only lame excuse is different.
- DangerousPie 5y ago> This is exactly what Belarus just did. No it's not?!
- iso1210 5y agoSpain, France and Italy closed their airspace to the plane. It was a disgraceful incident, but not the same as this. Had Belarus closed their airspace, the ryanair flight would have had to fly around (or divert to Warsaw or Lviv)
- leosarev 5y agoThey are closed their airspace in coordinated effort to land the plane within reach of authorities searching for Snowden. It's same.
- iso1210 5y agoPlane could have returned to Russia (and probably would if Snowden was aboard) Not defending it, especially the alleged search once it landed, but it was very different to a hoax bomb threat on a commercial plane
- achikin 5y agoThe general question is - can you alter the other country’s airplane path to pursue political goals? And the answer is yes.