• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

US, France, U.K, Give Ukraine Permission to Use Their Long Range Weapons to Strike Deep Within Russia

Spyglass said:
The Vienna convention basically made it sovereign soil for all intents and purposes. An attack on an embassy is an attack on that nation itself.
Click to expand...
Embassies are often mistakenly considered sovereign territory of the country they represent, but this is not the case.

They are instead located on the host country's land and remain under its sovereignty. This means that the host country has ultimate authority over the land, but embassies are granted specific privileges and immunities under international law.

The confusion arises due to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which provides embassies with protections, such as inviolability of their premises. Host country authorities cannot enter the embassy without the explicit permission of the represented country. This creates a perception of "extraterritoriality," but legally, the land remains part of the host country. For example, crimes committed on embassy grounds are subject to the host country's laws, though enforcement is complicated by diplomatic immunity.

In summary, embassies are not "foreign soil"; they are on the host nation's territory but enjoy protections that facilitate diplomacy and safeguard representatives.

Sources:
pathtoforeignservice.com

Consulate vs. Embassy: a comparison - Path to Foreign Service

Learn the difference between a consulate and embassy, including what each is, how the differ, and additional information.
pathtoforeignservice.com pathtoforeignservice.com

Do Embassies/Consulates sit on their nations soil?

embassies.gov.narkive.com embassies.gov.narkive.com
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
Embassies are often mistakenly considered sovereign territory of the country they represent, but this is not the case.

They are instead located on the host country's land and remain under its sovereignty. This means that the host country has ultimate authority over the land, but embassies are granted specific privileges and immunities under international law.

The confusion arises due to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which provides embassies with protections, such as inviolability of their premises. Host country authorities cannot enter the embassy without the explicit permission of the represented country. This creates a perception of "extraterritoriality," but legally, the land remains part of the host country. For example, crimes committed on embassy grounds are subject to the host country's laws, though enforcement is complicated by diplomatic immunity.

In summary, embassies are not "foreign soil"; they are on the host nation's territory but enjoy protections that facilitate diplomacy and safeguard representatives.

Sources:
pathtoforeignservice.com

Consulate vs. Embassy: a comparison - Path to Foreign Service

Learn the difference between a consulate and embassy, including what each is, how the differ, and additional information.
pathtoforeignservice.com pathtoforeignservice.com

Do Embassies/Consulates sit on their nations soil?

embassies.gov.narkive.com embassies.gov.narkive.com
Click to expand...
So, the host nation bombs it own dirt, but destroys a U.S. building, we don’t go to war over the dirt but over the building and personell? My point is what is the damn difference?
 
Spyglass said:
I saw reports that Russia is planning a missile strike on the embassy directly as a response to western top tier weaponry now being used.

A hit on U.S sovereign territory would be a game changer, and would force the United States to respond directly. If we did not in that scenario, the world will know that the U.S. is effectively a cat without claws.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily
 
DarkNoon said:
Embassies are often mistakenly considered sovereign territory of the country they represent, but this is not the case.

They are instead located on the host country's land and remain under its sovereignty. This means that the host country has ultimate authority over the land, but embassies are granted specific privileges and immunities under international law.

The confusion arises due to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which provides embassies with protections, such as inviolability of their premises. Host country authorities cannot enter the embassy without the explicit permission of the represented country. This creates a perception of "extraterritoriality," but legally, the land remains part of the host country. For example, crimes committed on embassy grounds are subject to the host country's laws, though enforcement is complicated by diplomatic immunity.

In summary, embassies are not "foreign soil"; they are on the host nation's territory but enjoy protections that facilitate diplomacy and safeguard representatives.

Sources:
pathtoforeignservice.com

Consulate vs. Embassy: a comparison - Path to Foreign Service

Learn the difference between a consulate and embassy, including what each is, how the differ, and additional information.
pathtoforeignservice.com pathtoforeignservice.com

Do Embassies/Consulates sit on their nations soil?

embassies.gov.narkive.com embassies.gov.narkive.com
Click to expand...
Indeed if embassies were to be considered as sovereign soil, every conflict or crisis could have easily spiraled out to a WW, if we count the amount of times an embassy has been attacked in the past 70 years.
 
Charmender said:
Indeed if embassies were to be considered as sovereign soil, every conflict or crisis could have easily spiraled out to a WW, if we count the amount of times an embassy has been attacked in the past 70 years.
Click to expand...
In the context of the Ukraine conflict, it would be a game changer. The war changes at that point. That’s a new level of escalation.
 
Spyglass said:
BREAKING: US sends equipment to Ukraine that is needed in case of nuclear war!November 20th aid package includes: “Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment”-> Why now?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859279306729341012
Click to expand...
They’ve been sending that since the beginning of the war. It’s more a matter of don’t get caught with your pants down then thinking something is going to happen.
 
Spyglass said:
So, the host nation bombs it own dirt, but destroys a U.S. building, we don’t go to war over the dirt but over the building and personell? My point is what is the damn difference?
Click to expand...
I mean attacking a embassy can be a act of war IF the host nation interprets it that way. Though historically attacks on embassies doesn't equal a declaration of war and happens offten.

Israel bombed Iran embassy and no war was declared. That's just recent history that I can recall off the top of my head.

But not really arguing the marrit of reaction from boming a embassy and just trying to clarify a common misconception...
 
Spyglass said:
BREAKING: US sends equipment to Ukraine that is needed in case of nuclear war!November 20th aid package includes: “Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment”-> Why now?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859279306729341012
Click to expand...
It's always been in each package.
Stop checking twitter, do yourself a big favor.

www.defense.gov

Biden Administration Announces Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine

The Defense Department announced additional security assistance to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs.
www.defense.gov
www.defense.gov

Biden Administration Announces New Security Assistance for Ukraine

The Defense Department announced a significant new security assistance package to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs.
www.defense.gov

Technical Difficulties

ua.usembassy.gov
 
Charmender said:
It's always been in each package.
Stop checking twitter, do yourself a big favor.

www.defense.gov

Biden Administration Announces Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine

The Defense Department announced additional security assistance to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs.
www.defense.gov
www.defense.gov

Biden Administration Announces New Security Assistance for Ukraine

The Defense Department announced a significant new security assistance package to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs.
www.defense.gov

Technical Difficulties

ua.usembassy.gov
Click to expand...
Beat me to it....not unusual.
 
DarkNoon said:
I mean attacking a embassy can be a act of war IF the host nation interprets it that way. Though historically attacks on embassies doesn't equal a declaration of war and have happen offten.

Israel bombed Iran embassy and no war was declared. That's just recent history that I can recall off the top of my head.

But not really arguing the marrit of reaction from boming a embassy and just trying to clarify a common misconception...
Click to expand...
1999 - The US bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia/Serbia. It was an accident, but it did not lead to war with China.

United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
These additional embassies being closed are unverified but being mentioned
https://twitter.com/x/status/1859283336364998826
Charmender said:
Those reports are fake and part of a todays russian campaign on twitter and telegram.
Anyway embassies are quite never sovereign territory.

Plus...the US embassy in Ukraine has been closed much more frequently than what's being reported in some articles.
Two times already this year alone.
We can speculate over the timing...but again, intelligence can never be 100% sure of what's being purposely let filtrate from the russians...
So...
Click to expand...
while true about past embassy closers it’s not just the US. And it obviously more than likely is in response to a potential conventional attack.
www.firstpost.com

Italy, Spain and Greece join US in closing Kyiv embassies; Ukraine accuses Russia of spreading fake airstrike threat

Hours after US announced that it is closing its embassy in Kyiv over potential “significant air attack”, Italy, Spain and Greece also closed their embassies in the Ukrainian capital on Wednesday, according to a report
www.firstpost.com www.firstpost.com

I wonder are Russian leaders stupid enough to think repeatedly threatening a nuclear responce would be regarded as a credible deterrent. That by them doing so repeatedly, for which I have ridiculed then in doing.
That at some point their repeated empty threats dilute their ability to govern they are then left with no option but to back it up.

I am not saying this is the situation now. But it’s a fair question to ask I believe. When your preeminent goal is to remain in power and to be removed from power has serious possibiy even fatal consequences. Then to what length will they go to to stay in power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom