I don't actually care whether it's true or not - the OP brought it up as an example, so rather than challenge the example I'd rather challenge the point. This blog post starts as a thought-experiment for what would happen if there were no nation-states, which is clearly already in the realm of fiction, so if it's not true then just posit hypothetically that a Secretary of State suggested that the U.S. drop a bomb on an Australian citizen in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
My point is that it's not actually Ecuador or the UK who keeps him alive, it's that the U.S. would be dropping a bomb on a private citizen in the midst of a city.
> My point is that it's not actually Ecuador or the UK who keeps him alive, it's that the U.S. would be dropping a bomb on a private citizen in the midst of a city.
The UK is the US's closest ally, forged in the blood of millions of dead fighting for common causes. The last military action between the two was over two centuries ago.
It would be truly unprecedented to bomb the capital of our closest ally, an act which is undoubtedly an act of war, in order to assassinate a US citizen accused of crimes.
There's no comparison whatsoever between this hypothetical act and airstrikes in an active warzone.
My point is that it's not actually Ecuador or the UK who keeps him alive, it's that the U.S. would be dropping a bomb on a private citizen in the midst of a city.