> It's not a technicality, diplomatic ties are broken and restarted all the time. How is it not a technicality? the idea of having an embassy is that a nation can have representatives in a foreign nation operating and relaying communications. What the UK is going is saying "you have operate, but not for these 15 mins so that we can take what we want from your embassy" > Arguably, Ecuador risked it's ties with the UK first by habouring a wanted suspect. See the aggressor isn't Ecuador. Ecuador was still considering when UK issued the letter. The normal thing to do is let Ecuador make their decision, and then act accordingly. >if they can't spin "no, he's wanted for rape, he should go on trial", they ARE weak, and not just diplomatically. Ecuador has asked that they guaranteed that he won't be extradited to the US so he can face trial for rape. UK and Sweeden hasn't guaranteed that. If it is "just all about rape", then they can make that guarantee, but they aren't. Ecuador has asked the right questions and the UK hasn't given any strong answers.

IMO the proper diplomatic response from the UK would be to use a diplomatic back channel and ask Ecuador to deny him asylum. In exchange the UK can give Ecuador some under the table concessions. Even if Ecuador resisted, Ecuador could give him asylum and then the UK could issue it's letter. The Order of Ops matters. Many UK foreign diplomats agree.