Reading the ICAO report would make you understand what happenned . Stop coming back with the debunked theories . The Minsk authorities are 100% responsible for this hijacking and it is not the pax that should face justice but the perpetrators responsible.
As to ATC, the controllers just relayed to the crew what they were told by their supervisors and state security men behind them. We all would have done the same. Hindsight is always a wonderdul thing.
Less hair here resumed the situation very well in 20 words.

If it walks and quacks, its a duck

IG

Absolutly agreeing that the pilots had no other choice than to lnad at Minsk. But am I the only one who thinks that it was at least questionable that the crew took off again without the hijacked passenger(s), without at least trying to create some diplomatic upset?
I mean, somehow the captain is responsable for getting his passengers where they want to go ... ...

So the captain should have gone into the terminal and gotten the missing pax? He's not in the marines.... He is responsible for the people who are on the airplane when it is moving.

"Captain, this passenger is a wanted terrorist in Belarus. Here we have signed & stamped arrest warrant from the Belarus High Court. Will you release him to our custody, or are you aiding and abeting a wanted fugitive?"

Hindsight is always 20/20, and the Captain on the day has my utmost sympathy.

The assertion that a PIC, whether in general terms or in this specific real incident and situation, has such obligation as to attempt to wrest custody and control of a deplaned passenger from the authorities of the jurisdiction to which the aircraft was diverted -- this assertion seems quite novel.

One point that, imho, is important to note here is that the interests of PICs in this general subject area typically flow in the exact opposite direction. In other words, how to get local authorities in the jurisdiction where the aircraft has landed - whether by diversion (by the PIC's discretion) or as scheduled - to exercise legal authority over an unruly passenger who the PIC either has caused to be deplaned or requests the local law enforcement to remove from the aircraft. The Tokyo Convention of 1963 (much longer formal title), and Montreal Protocol of 2014, address the problems, or some of the problems, of jurisdiction with regard to unruly passengers - but in the context of getting them off the aircraft and/or prosecuted, not retrieving them for continued transportation after being wrongfully and unlawfully removed by the state where the aircraft has landed. Unless I've gotten really rusty on some main provisions of Air law, that is......

As to diplomatic incident causation.... somehow I think, stretching my imagination to the breaking point as if this SLF/attorney were a PIC and in this fact situation - I think getting the heck out of Dodge would be what the estimable Mr. O'Leary would want, demand, and expect.

Exactly.......

The last "dicktater" of Europe the USSR was tempted with too easy an opportunity to soil his own sandbox to pass it up by thinking before acting. The false bomb threat is itself a criminal act, which has not yet been aired but hopefully will see the light of day at some point. There isn't much that can be done at the time to stop stupidity by the 'tater topper, and hopefully Vlad's tea party will soon relieve him from his problems permanently. (I suspect that the 'tater has medical problems that don't involve vlad's teapot antics, but his potential demise may be a sign to vlad to go to Minsk and take up residence, to help his "mate", which historically means annexation. Mr p has never missed a chance to do the wrong thing)