3 ms·

The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets b

The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. In the end both the US and Belarus grounded a plane for political reasons, and that’s what makes the situation the same in many people’s eyes. It’s just that one of those countries doesn’t have the clout to make its means look harmless and benign so had to resort to a fighter jet escort.

smachiz 5y ago
I also think you have to draw a fairly large distinction between private jet and COMMERCIAL AIRLINER.
- des1nderlase 5y ago
  Why? For the government they are technically the same.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  I think the distinction is rather "normal" people vs. diplomats.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
> The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. That's a bit silly though. An implicit threat still requires the belief that an act of violence will be carried out. Do you honestly think anyone in Europe believes America will pull back the velvet glove just to find one person? It'd cause the disintegration of NATO.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  No, I don’t honestly think that, but I do think that the amount of military the US keeps abroad is a good proxy for how much influence they have over the area.
- andrepd 5y ago
  The US has an unimaginable amount of soft and hard power. There's plenty of softer retaliation before carpet-bombing, which you can use (or the threat thereof) to make countries toe the line.
- orestarod 5y ago
  Absurdly more of a threat than the US military is its economic means, backed of course by the said army. Also the underground capabilities. You don't get to anger someone who has all sorts of ways to cripple you, personally or at a national level.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  They grounded the plane, didn't they? Which threats were most salient to which parties is an interesting exercise but not the main point.
  - emn13 5y ago
    They did not ground the plane. France and Italy (and some less relevant countries) denied usage of their airspace (though the french sorta-kinda dispute that?), then Evo Morales's plane chose to land in Austria instead of turning back. It could have chosen to land in any number of countries, or flown back. Portugal didn't even close airspace, merely denied landing permissions for a refueling stop - and while that's not entirely reasonable, it's at least comprehensible they didn't want to get involved in the Snowden drama. Notably, it was in Evo Morales political interest to appear to be "sticking it to the man", so undoubtedly he had no problems with making the impact appear greater than it was. Not to mention his TV interview the very day before can be read as a kind of dare to do just this. Had he really been carrying Snowden with intent to protect him, he surely would not have played this brinkmanship game in the first place, but even if he did, he did not need to land where he did. In other words, the US got played by Evo Morales who successfully demonstrated that the US can be pretty unreasonable at times. But the US did not take his plane hostage, not even via its allies; the situation is entirely unlike the Belarusian case at hand. Seriously: is being offensive to a diplomat that's knowingly playing a game of brinkmanship somehow equivalent to abducting a civilian plane?

smachiz 5y ago

I also think you have to draw a fairly large distinction between private jet and COMMERCIAL AIRLINER.

des1nderlase 5y ago
Why? For the government they are technically the same.
hutzlibu 5y ago
I think the distinction is rather "normal" people vs. diplomats.

scoopertrooper 5y ago

> The United States has the implicit threat of the mightiest army in the world behind its soft spoken requests. The US doesn’t have to peacock with fighter jets because the NATO bases scattered all over Europe do the talking. That's a bit silly though. An implicit threat still requires the belief that an act of violence will be carried out. Do you honestly think anyone in Europe believes America will pull back the velvet glove just to find one person? It'd cause the disintegration of NATO.

bananabiscuit 5y ago
No, I don’t honestly think that, but I do think that the amount of military the US keeps abroad is a good proxy for how much influence they have over the area.
andrepd 5y ago
The US has an unimaginable amount of soft and hard power. There's plenty of softer retaliation before carpet-bombing, which you can use (or the threat thereof) to make countries toe the line.
orestarod 5y ago
Absurdly more of a threat than the US military is its economic means, backed of course by the said army. Also the underground capabilities. You don't get to anger someone who has all sorts of ways to cripple you, personally or at a national level.
refenestrator 5y ago
They grounded the plane, didn't they? Which threats were most salient to which parties is an interesting exercise but not the main point.
- emn13 5y ago
  They did not ground the plane. France and Italy (and some less relevant countries) denied usage of their airspace (though the french sorta-kinda dispute that?), then Evo Morales's plane chose to land in Austria instead of turning back. It could have chosen to land in any number of countries, or flown back. Portugal didn't even close airspace, merely denied landing permissions for a refueling stop - and while that's not entirely reasonable, it's at least comprehensible they didn't want to get involved in the Snowden drama. Notably, it was in Evo Morales political interest to appear to be "sticking it to the man", so undoubtedly he had no problems with making the impact appear greater than it was. Not to mention his TV interview the very day before can be read as a kind of dare to do just this. Had he really been carrying Snowden with intent to protect him, he surely would not have played this brinkmanship game in the first place, but even if he did, he did not need to land where he did. In other words, the US got played by Evo Morales who successfully demonstrated that the US can be pretty unreasonable at times. But the US did not take his plane hostage, not even via its allies; the situation is entirely unlike the Belarusian case at hand. Seriously: is being offensive to a diplomat that's knowingly playing a game of brinkmanship somehow equivalent to abducting a civilian plane?