This is a major political power maneuver. As long as Snowden is in Russia, Obama can control the messaging. He is, after all, cooperating with an important physical threat to, if not outright enemy of the United States. Asylum in Switzerland, along with all the mental associations with its neutrality and sovereignty, puts Obama in a much trickier position. Probably not enough to turn the tide, but it forces Obama to address the situation with a subset of his constituents who are not as easily convinced by "Murica is Awesome!" style arguments.
Snowden leaving the country would provide good timing for Russia to de-escalate their Western relations. On the other hand this could be years out. I suspect Putin may rather cut off the gas while waiting for another major economic contraction and debt default cycle breaking up at least pieces of the EU.
Switzerland now has grudges against the US for destroying their bank secrecy. If Bloomberg news is to be believed, both capital and humans are leaving the country as a result.
At the same time, no EU country has the courage to do what Switzerland is discussing now (Germany's Merkel has even publicly refused to even discuss the matter). This is one reason why it is also a good thing to NOT have every country join the EU - centralize power and it becomes very interesting as a target for corruption.
Not that it impacts the point you're trying to make, but it's a misconception that embassies are the territories of the countries they represent. The Swiss embassy in Moscow is Russian sovereign territory.
I saw something recently where British taxpayers have paid millions now in overtime because the government insists on 24/7 police surrounding the embassy where Assange has been living.
That seems like an unnecessarily spiteful act to me. An expensive game of cat & mouse. I can't believe that British taxpayers aren't the least bit miffed at the government taking their tax dollars and wasting it on something as frivolous as this.
I think the problem is more that there is a large segment of the British populace who actually want this policing to occur, and thats why its happening. To some segments of British society, there is nothing more abhorrent than someone trying to 'take down the state' or 'step out of their position in line' .. if it were not the case, it wouldn't be happening. The British people get the government they want ..
I know a few people here, American and others, that will gladly buy him a drink. He's often toasted at parties.
Of course there's the pesky issue of him being an active intelligence agent when he was stationed in Geneva by the CIA. Some of his claims about bribing Swiss police seem made up though.
I can see why Snowden is heroic for alerting the American people to the unconstitutional acts of their government, but I fail to see how other countries are owed such consideration. In particular, the idea that Snowden could trade information on foreign intelligence operations for asylum is puzzling.
Just so its clear, the USA broke - and continues to break - many international laws regarding human rights. Snowden would be giving evidence on this fact, not trading information on intelligence operations.
How he will get there is another matter, he'll have to cross at least two other countries and we've already seen a plane ordered down in order for it to be searched. Whether some nation in the flightpath from Russia to Switzerland would have the required fortitude to do that to a plane owned by the Swiss government is another matter entirely.
Pissing off Bolivia is probably a mild '2' in international relationships, pissing off the Swiss would likely rate a '9' or so.
Depends where in Russia you leave from, Russia is big.
A great circle from Moscow to Zurich passes through Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic and Germany, however if you went from Volgograd to Zurich you would go straight through eastern Ukraine.
I don't think there is currently any commercial carrier that sends its planes over Eastern Ukraine. Not any commercial carrier that wishes to remain in business.
Right now, according to Flightradar24, there are airliners from Dniproavia, Metrojet, Yamal Airlines and Air Moldova flying across eastern Ukraine. They are mostly going across the north of East Ukraine apart from Dniproavia, which may yet swing north, but it isn't as though airlines are avoiding the whole of eastern Ukraine.
That word 'conceivable'. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or eastern Ukraine for that matter. That is normally anywhere east of the Dnieper river.
Either you missed out on the last couple of months news coverage somehow or you are deliberately being obtuse in order to score 'points'. Not sure which.
Anyway, these days when people are talking about the Eastern Ukraine in terms of an area that you should not be flying planes over they are not quibbling over facts of geography but in relation to the ongoing attempt at secession in the Eastern part of the Ukraine. If you wish to have it specified by google map coordinates, lists of cities, an animated map of the moving frontier then I could probably comply with the demand but it isn't worth the trouble.
Currently 'don't fly your civilian aircraft over Eastern Ukraine' is something that you could take either as person informed about current events or as a cartographer.
By your standards we don't have a 'middle America', there is no 'eastern Cyprus' and so on.
It's contested territory at best right now, quite possibly at some point in the future it won't be called Ukraine at all.
Look, there are still commercial carriers flying across the Karkiv oblast. Karkiv is where the mayor was shot in the back by a sniper and people are currently using grenade launchers in town. It is contested.
By my standards, eastern Cyprus is the eastern parts of Cyprus and middle America is the people in America who share a conservative rural culture, though where they live is almost incidental, much like middle England.
And I have been reading the news, however I do not rely on it if looking for actual facts about where commercial carriers are flying.
This is because journalists are generally really lazy and unreliable for anything other than a broad brush view of things, a view which you are now regurgitating unprocessed.
Snowden has repeatedly asserted that the documents are out of his control, the only value that he has is in a potential barter deal with the US. Since even in the cold war spies were traded rather than those that fled their home country I highly doubt such a scenario could materialize. It would also make Putin look even worse than he already does on the international stage, and more importantly he'd look bad in the eyes of his own people (assuming they'd ever hear about it).
Snowdens main value to Russia has so far been of the PR variety (And mostly for the home front at that, 'sticking it to the USA').
If you wish to make the case that Snowden will not be permitted to leave Russia then I think that is the claim that needs substantiation, rather than the opposite.
Maybe you're right and they won't let him go but that would need a plausible scenario first.
Yeah but then again what was Morales going to do about it? Get a little bit angry? That decision was literally consequence-free. I highly doubt anyone would order Putin's plane to land anywhere though. Just like no one would order the air force one to land forcibly, it's just not done.
Really? Like what, launch nukes because Russia doesn't want to hand over Snowden? Come on, that's just ridiculous. If Putin sent his plane(or went himself on official business) to Switzerland, absolutely no one could do anything about it.
We're in violent agreement here. It was merely an illustration of what kind of ultimatum would be required to get that plane to land and I really don't see that happening. So I think if there is a formal offer of asylum by Switzerland and Russia lets him go un-opposed (which I assume they will) then he will arrive in Switzerland.
