‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

US sanctions force The Netherlands off Microsoft and toward alternative NixOS

388 points · 396 comments · mywacaday

  1. guidoiaquinti · · focus · HN ↗
    Several International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have been unable to access their bank accounts or receive routine salary payments and financial transfers due to financial blockages triggered by United States sanctions. In the country where they live
    1. rapsey · · focus · HN ↗
      ICC judges getting the right wing activist treatment, except the activists get it from their own government.
      1. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
        Concrete examples to verify such claims please? Also in civilized countries such things are decided by the justice system, not the government (which to the surprise of many simple minded people - like a certain US president and his fanbase - is independent from the government).
        1. pc86 · · focus · HN ↗
          In what universe is the judiciary not part of the government?
          1. bunderbunder · · focus · HN ↗
            Government is a term with multiple senses.

            In the US it’s common to only use it to describe the entire apparatus for holding, administering and enforcing state power.

            But it can also be used to mean the current ruling power in a parliamentary system together with the administrative bodies under its direct control. So something more akin to just the executive branch in the US system. And then certain state agencies such as the judiciary are meant to be independent of the government under that meaning of the term. I believe this is the most common understanding of the word outside the US.

            1. edgyquant · · focus · HN ↗
              Its a really weird use of the word government to not actually refer to the government but to the executive and saying the “courts are outside of the government” makes it seem like they aren’t a part of the state.
              1. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
                The important point is that courts have the power to overrule unconstitutional or unlawful government decisions.
              2. bunderbunder · · focus · HN ↗
                Why is it so weird that a language as widely spoken as English should have dialectical variation?

                Wait ‘til you find out what some of my friends mean when they say “pavement”.

              3. impossiblefork · · focus · HN ↗
                Consider though system like the Swedish system which existed in the Viking age with Things and a king.

                Things were courts with huge power, and consisted of a gathering of all free men and had basically unlimited power, because they were the people. Meanwhile, the government was the person of the king.

                I think that's an example of a system where the courts (Thing) is clearly not part of the government.

              4. saulapremium · · focus · HN ↗
                I'd say it's weirder to conflate state and government.
            2. hunterpayne · · focus · HN ↗
              The Judiciary is one of the 3 branches of the US government. Perhaps English isn't your 1st language, but the courts are always part of the government and the word government would include the courts in English. No, there is no other interpretation of the word government in English.
          2. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
            Germany for instance? Google "Bundesverfassungsgericht". I don't think such a separated checks and balances system is all that unusual in democratic countries. A major task of a "proper" justice system is to keep the government in check.
            1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
              The judiciary is always a part of the government. It may be notionally separate from the executive, but that's (a) a different thing and (b) not always meaningful from the perspective of normal citizens. And it's not at all standard that the judiciary is meant to keep the government in check. Historically that's not been the case at all, and the growth of US Supreme Court style powers to invalidate legislation is a relatively recent phenomenon that governments can decide to end or restrict arbitrarily at any time.
              1. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
                The word "government" seems to be used differently depending on language and country.

                For instance in Germany, the specific words "Bundesregierung" (Federal Government, or just short "government") and "Landesregierungen" (State Governments) explicitly describe the "executive part" of the "political system".

                The Federal and State Parliaments are the "legislative part" and the courts are the "judiciary part" (with the "Federal Constitutional Court" at the top). This whole idea of strict separation of power is the most important foundation of the German political system.

                When talking about "the government" in Germany, people mean the institutions of the executive (mainly the chancellor and ministries, sometimes also including the president, but never the parliaments and courts).

                And tbh, I would also have a hard time describing the US Democratic Party as the "current US government" just because they're sitting in the Congress.

                1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
                  The term government is ambiguous in English as well, which is why people who want to talk precisely about statecraft use the words "executive" or "administration" to refer specifically to the part that isn't the parliament or judiciary. Sometimes people use the word "state" to refer to the combination of all of them, but in common parlance the word government can be used interchangeably with the word state and people who aren't especially political would normally do so.
          3. sholladay · · focus · HN ↗
            It is, but in casual conversation, “government” often means the people/party currently in power (of the executive and/or legislature).

            You can see this when people say “[X] is unable to form a government”. They don’t mean unable to form a judiciary.

        2. ecshafer · · focus · HN ↗
          The concrete example would be Canada "debanking" the truckers who protested in Ottawa for exercising their GOD given right to free speech. Another concrete example would be Germany having banks close accounts for the AFD and AFD related people.
          1. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
            Some basic googling would tell you that:

            1. the AfD thing was the decision of individual banks, not of the German government. Basically, in a free world companies can decide who they want to do business with.

            2. the Canadian trucker "debanking" was quickly resolved because the Canadian justice system did their job and overruled the unlawful "emergency" government order

            1. coredog64 · · focus · HN ↗
              After being heard to exclaim "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", Henry II subsequently explained that the 4 knights each came to their own individual decisions about how best to deploy their swords.
              1. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
                A poor analogy for democratic countries (spot on for Putin and his merry band of oligarchs though).
                1. SllX · · focus · HN ↗
                  Being a democracy does not make countries immune from the phenomenon where under their own judgment, private actors decide with information provided to them in part by their own government, it’s more often than not in their best interest to be with them rather than against them.
                  1. ecshafer · · focus · HN ↗
                    What if the private company is "deciding under their own judgement because the VP's roomate from College is a chief of staff and they were told it would be really helpful if they decided in a beneficial way? We saw from the Twitter files that Twitter had an active relationship with members of the Democratic party and agents of the government to decide under their own judgement to ban or downrank certain people and ideas. This led to another concrete example of major outlets being effectively banned (The New York Post) due to the Hunter Biden Laptop issue. This behind the scene collusion is where the "they are a private company" line falls apart.
                    1. SllX · · focus · HN ↗
                      They are private companies. That doesn’t mean it isn’t in their best interest to maintain good relations with the people directing the nation’s sovereign power.

                      Never forget: sovereign power outranks corporate power. Corporations are better at making money. Sovereigns are better at violence.

          2. Y-bar · · focus · HN ↗
            Which _specific_ GOD gave that right and did any of the other gods concur?
            1. ecshafer · · focus · HN ↗
              There is only one GOD.
              1. kijashdkujdfhas · · focus · HN ↗
                According to you. Others may believe in values ranging from 0 to some large N.
              2. benenrjdnz · · focus · HN ↗
                Off by one error.
              3. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
                Damn right! But I doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster cares much about the indiviual rights of Canadian truckers (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spaghettimonster.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spaghettimonster.org&#x2F;).
            2. Shiggy_ · · focus · HN ↗
              The obvious answer here is &quot;the one that you hate.&quot; Or, the Christian god of Abraham.

              The preamble is not subtle: &quot;Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.&quot;

              Now, legally&#x2F;philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to &quot;reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society&quot;. Effectively, if the government decides that you&#x27;re &quot;not reasonable,&quot; you have no rights.

              The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.

              Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from &quot;time immemorial.&quot;

              1. Y-bar · · focus · HN ↗
                Serious question: Why would I hate any god?
                1. Shiggy_ · · focus · HN ↗
                  Serious question: Why are you pretending that you don&#x27;t know which god the western world is referring to in its legal documents?
                  1. Y-bar · · focus · HN ↗
                    I don’t regularly read legal documents of nations I don’t live in. Why did you assume I hate any god?

                    Edit: the constitution in my country mentions no religion or god. Neither does the Lisbon Treaty or the Treaty on European Union.

              2. dragonwriter · · focus · HN ↗
                &gt; The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God

                No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.

          3. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
            The same people who will tell you it&#x27;s wrong to debank truckers for blocking highways will also complain that we don&#x27;t debank climate protestors who block highways.
          4. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
            btw Germany doesn&#x27;t have free speech. It is explicitly illegal there to deny the holocaust (the German one) or to spread racial hatred.
            1. ecshafer · · focus · HN ↗
              All men, being created by GOD, have certain inalienable rights, like free speech. Whether a country infringes upon those rights or not is a different story. Germany has a history in authoritarianism that seems to persist.
              1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                Personally, I was created by my parents.
              2. saulapremium · · focus · HN ↗
                Sigh, it&#x27;s pretty depressing to have to read stuff like this on a place like HN that is otherwise pretty informed and mature.
        3. mhh__ · · focus · HN ↗
          This is only really true in certain countries that don&#x27;t really do democracy. In Britain for example parliament is sovereign.
          1. rapsey · · focus · HN ↗
            Farage was debanked. So was Trump and Melania, AfD politicians, Le Penn in france.
            1. mhh__ · · focus · HN ↗
              I may have misread the topic of conversation but he was debanked by a private bank - I was arguing against juristocracy but possibly incorrectly aimed
              1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
                He was debanked by every bank in the UK, for entirely political reasons, and then they lied about it.

                To what extent this was explicitly coordinated by the government versus people who are merely strongly ideologically aligned with it is unclear; in systems as totalitarian as the UK is becoming it&#x27;s a distinction without a difference as anyone not so aligned is quickly removed for one plausible reason or another and replaced with someone who is.

                1. foldr · · focus · HN ↗
                  Err, no, he was debanked by the flashy private bank Coutts. A bank that would refuse to give most people an account.
                  1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
                    Err, no, he was debanked by Coutts and then denied accounts at every other bank. You apparently didn&#x27;t read the statement he made at the time, so here it is:

                    &gt; I emailed the chairman, a lackey phoned me to say that it was a commercial decision, which I have to say, I don’t believe for a single moment. So I thought, well, there we are, I’ll have to go and find a different bank. I’ve been to six, no seven banks actually. Ask them all, could I have a personal and a business account? And the answer has been no.

                    Denied accounts at seven banks, and in the end he was right - the reason Coutts tried to close his account was simply because some woke committee hated him, it was purely political. There are no legal or commercial reasons to deny him an account, yet somehow, every bank does so. With no bank in the UK he cannot make payments and without that ability he cannot live there, so the banks came very close to ensuring that the British people could not vote for him even though Reform is now the most popular party.

                    The British establishment is entirely homogenous on this, because they claim anyone who supports Farage is insufficiently committed to &quot;diversity and inclusion&quot; (leftism) and thus must be forced out. It&#x27;s indistinguishable from the banks all being directly controlled by the Labour party. The only reason Farage was able to stay is because Coutts were impatient; it was the dying days of the Conservative administration and they suddenly realized what was about to happen to them if they didn&#x27;t make changes sharpish, so they stuck the FCA on NatWest and some heads rolled. But if Coutts had waited a bit longer until the next Labour government, there would have been no help coming and British democracy would have become even more sickly and fake than it already is (I say this as a British citizen).

                    1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                      It&#x27;s ironic because Farage would support every bank having the GOD-given right to deny people to have accounts.
                      1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
                        He launched a (short lived) website and organization to try and support people who had been debanked, so no he wouldn&#x27;t. Farage is not focused on libertarian politics, if he ever was.
                    2. foldr · · focus · HN ↗
                      As far as I can discover, we only have Nigel Farage&#x27;s word for the seven subsequent refusals from other banks. The issue with Coutts is on the record, as there was subsequent legal and regulatory action, etc. I for one don&#x27;t believe Farage here. He may have been turned down by some other fancy private banks, but that is not the same thing as being debanked. In fact, NatWest (owners of Coutts) explicitly offered him a standard bank account when they notified him of closure of his Coutts account: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;uk&#x2F;nigel-farage-says-set-lose-coutts-account-offered-natwest-one-instead-2023-07-04&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;uk&#x2F;nigel-farage-says-set-lose-...

                      The notion that banking, of all industries, has been taken over by woke leftists (please supply your own scare quotes for the first of those appellations – I give up) is for the birds. As for the establishment, your own take on this is inconsistent, first saying that the establishment is entirely homogenous and aligned against Farage, and then pointing out that the government of the day helped Farage to get his Coutts account back.

                      1. mhh__ · · focus · HN ↗
                        Banking has been taken over by HR and regulators
                        1. foldr · · focus · HN ↗
                          &gt;taken over by HR

                          Who hasn&#x27;t?

                          &gt; and regulators

                          Good! (I wonder why?)

                          This is quite different from the claim that Coutts, of all organisations, was in hoc to &#x27;woke leftists&#x27; while the country was under a Conservative government.

                          1. mhh__ · · focus · HN ↗
                            You don&#x27;t actually think the Tory party is right wing, surely?

                            Theresa May et al instituted net zero basically without a vote, huge liberalisation of various social matters, enormous spending on welfare, locked the country down, and then imported 4 million people!

                            1. foldr · · focus · HN ↗
                              I do not think that the Tory party is leftist, or &#x27;woke&#x27; (whatever that even means these days).
                              1. mhh__ · · focus · HN ↗
                                They are or at least were in those years died in the wool woke. They minted coins with &quot;diversity built Britain&quot; on them, rishi held one up for the camera!
                                1. foldr · · focus · HN ↗
                                  Again, we run into the fact that &#x27;woke&#x27; is now a meaningless term of abuse. Most people would take it as an uncontroversial and largely apolitical observation that ethnic minority communities have made a significant contribution to the history of Britain (which was the point of the coin). If you think that&#x27;s an example of woke extremism of some kind, it says more about you than about the Conservative party.

                                  Sunak himself certainly didn&#x27;t present as a dyed in the wool wokist in the lead up to his permiership:

                                  &gt; Whether it’s pulling down statues of historic figures, replacing the school curriculum with anti-British propaganda or rewriting the English language so we can’t even use words like ‘man’, ‘woman’ or ‘mother’ without being told we’re offending someone [... etc. etc.]

                                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2022&#x2F;jul&#x2F;29&#x2F;rishi-sunak-liz-truss-culture-war-woke-nonsense" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2022&#x2F;jul&#x2F;29&#x2F;rishi-sunak...

            2. flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
              From what I can read on various news sites, not even LePenn blamed the government directly. All those cases were either business decisions of companies who can freely decide who they want as customers, or quickly overturned as unlawful by judges.

              It would be good if you did at least a minimal amount of due diligence before spreading misinformation (but I guess spreading misinformation is the whole point).

            3. tremon · · focus · HN ↗
              And all were denied because of the same problem: laundering russian money.
      2. embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
        Are you saying the US government been implementing sanctions to make right wing activists not be able to receive bank transfers? That sounds like friendly fire and backwards, are you sure you understood the &quot;source&quot; correctly?
        1. sebzim4500 · · focus · HN ↗
          Not from the US, but for example anti-lockdown campaigners in Canada had their bank accounts frozen IIRC
          1. embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
            Wow, I think disagreeing with a lockdown in the face of a pandemic is pretty fucking stupid but even so, freezing people&#x27;s bank accounts is even more messed up and should not happen over any sort of non-violent political actions in a modern democracy. Seems unblocked now, but still that seems like a bananas reaction.

            For reference as I hadn&#x27;t heard about it before:

            &gt; Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister of finance, told a committee of MPs that up to 210 bank accounts holding about $7.8 million were frozen under the financial measures contained in the Emergencies Act. - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;emergency-bank-measures-finance-committee-1.6360769" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;emergency-bank-measures-fin...

            1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
              They were blocking highways with their trucks, and the same people who criticise this still want to debank climate protestors who block highways with their bodies.
        2. edgyquant · · focus · HN ↗
          Previous administrations have yes.
      3. bunderbunder · · focus · HN ↗
        I’m trying to remember the last time an international criminal court judge came to my community and brandished a firearm while shouting slurs at me. It has to have been at least a few weeks now.
      4. iAMkenough · · focus · HN ↗
        You mean right-wing terrorists? The ones that forcibly invaded the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and attacked police officers in an effort to distrupt democracy?
        1. neuronexmachina · · focus · HN ↗
          The current admin views right-wing terrorists as brave heroes in service of Dear Leader.
          1. epistasis · · focus · HN ↗
            Currently in the US, it&#x27;s not criminal if it&#x27;s done at the bidding of Trump, or if Trump approves of the violence.

            The federal government is still stymieing the investigation of the ICE&#x2F;DHS killings of Minneapolis citizens, violating their own policies requiring investigation.

            There&#x27;s no more federal rule of law until there&#x27;s a full change in power, and that requires installing a functional DOJ and a new Supreme Court that is more interested in the law than in furthering partisan politics.

    2. mhh__ · · focus · HN ↗
      Frankly I think this is a good bit of hormesis for European countries. It&#x27;s critical that we have domestic payment infrastructure.
      1. busssard · · focus · HN ↗
        what would be an alternative currently? i know of services like twint but this is a local swiss solution. any more EU wide established solutions??
        1. foepys · · focus · HN ↗
          Wero [1] is build on the Dutch iDEAL system and is currently on an upwards trajectory with both banks and retail [2].

          1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wero-wallet.eu&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wero-wallet.eu&#x2F;

          2: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.werotracker.eu&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.werotracker.eu&#x2F;

          1. petcat · · focus · HN ↗
            I&#x27;ve never seen Wero before. Is it similar to Zelle in the US?

            Edit: it looks like Wero requires Google&#x2F;Apple device attestation [1]. So this is basically a non-starter in terms of &quot;sovereignty&quot; from the US government. Anybody on the wrong side of US sanctions still can&#x27;t use this since they get their iOS&#x2F;Google Android devices shut off too.

            [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.wero-wallet.eu&#x2F;hc&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;articles&#x2F;25599098295313-I-m-seeing-this-error-message-Your-device-does-not-meet-our-security-requirements" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.wero-wallet.eu&#x2F;hc&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;articles&#x2F;25599098295...

            1. toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
              It gives the Zelle UX to the underlying SEPA Instant infrastructure across the EU. The EU is using Wero to migrate off of Visa and Mastercard. Parent&#x27;s werotracker tracks not only banks supporting it, but merchants as well.

              Goodbye Visa and Mastercard: 130M Europeans switching to sovereign payment - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48207004">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48207004 - May 2026 (777 comments)

              Wero – Digital payment wallet, made in Europe - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47038965">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47038965 - February 2026 (132 comments)

              Europe&#x27;s Banks Launch Wero Payments to Dislodge Visa, Mastercard - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41666833">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41666833 - September 2024 (88 comments)

              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wero" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wero

              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Single_Euro_Payments_Area" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Single_Euro_Payments_Area

              &gt; Edit: it looks like Wero requires Google or Apple device attestation. So this is basically a non-starter in terms of &quot;sovereignty&quot; from the US government.

              You don&#x27;t replace the entire stack at once, you replace it piece by piece. Each piece gets you closer to sovereignty. Payment infra, payment rails-&gt;tech infra and foundational systems next. If US Big Tech pulls the rug, that Jira ticket goes to the top of the stack. It will take time, but we&#x27;re headed in the right direction for Europe to decouple from the US. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Perfect does not exist, nor is there a quick fix, only reasonable efforts to continue to work over time towards success criteria.

              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;OODA_loop" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;OODA_loop

              Any revenue and capital that can be retained in the EU versus being sent to the US is capital that can be recycled into further decoupling and domestic EU investment, versus ending up as US shareholder profits and tax revenues.

              (think in systems)

              1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                I&#x27;ve always used SEPA (even before it was instant) to buy event tickets. The flow is like this: you place your ticket order, then it tells you a bank account number, amount and reference code to send. I believe a newer system puts this in a QR code instead. The order remains open until payment is received and then emails you the tickets, or it times out usually after 14 days.

                Seems a little risky for the seller. The advantage of credit cards is that you can charge the card synchronously during the order flow. I haven&#x27;t used Wero yet but I imagine it&#x27;s more similar to the QR code process than the credit card process.

                Advantage of a push system is fraud is basically impossible, disadvantage is it takes so many steps. With a pull system you just scan or autocomplete your card and it&#x27;s done.

                1. toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
                  Teething issues are likely unavoidable, but I assume they will end up like Pix eventually [1] (or close enough). It&#x27;s simply the body of work between current state and target state. Tangentially, Europe is exploring integrating with Brazil&#x27;s Pix instant payment system [2].

                  [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatispix.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatispix.com&#x2F;

                  [2] ECB to assess feasibility of interlinking with Brazil instant payment system Pix - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49846701">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49846701 - September 2026

              2. hyperman1 · · focus · HN ↗
                If Wero grandfathers in the existing iDeal flow, no cellphone is required. Just a bank card and a small gadget provided by your bank. Belgian Bancontact already works like that since the &#x27;80s. I never use my cellphone for payments.
                1. toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
                  Any links you can recommend that I would be able to cite in the future on this topic?
          2. busssard · · focus · HN ↗
            never seen this before and the adoption tracker shows my bank doesnt have it or announced a plan for it yet

            i will keep it in mind! thank you

        2. alexgieg · · focus · HN ↗
          Cryptocurrencies in general are a good alternative. They&#x27;re strictly unsanctionable and, depending on the currency selected, also untraceable, so secondary sanctions would be extremely difficult to apply with any kind of granularity. National-scale sanctions, evidently, would still be quite feasible.

          Alas, that kind of anonymity runs counter to the very soul of the European bureaucratic ethos. They absolutely want to know in detail where every single cent goes, plus the power to block transactions at will, so they&#x27;re looking into some magic solution that allows them full purview and full control while perfectly denying the US and its spy apparatus the possibility to also see into it, an impossible combination of requirements.

          And I say all that as a fan of the EU. It&#x27;s one of their many blind spots they need to overcome if they ever want to become a technological superpower.

          1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
            7 transactions per second
            1. nvme0n1p1 · · focus · HN ↗
              Yes, that was a pretty big dealbreaker... in 2011
              1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                Still is one. I think visa processes more transactions now than in 2011.
            2. alexgieg · · focus · HN ↗
              Some new cryptocurrencies designed for interbank communication can do 20k transactions per second now, and can scale above that. It&#x27;s just a matter of choosing the appropriate stack for the task.
              1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
                Can they do it within ten seconds and completely decentralised, as well? Which ones?
                1. alexgieg · · focus · HN ↗
                  I think the currently fastest is Hedera (HBAR), at 2 minutes per transaction or so, and that it&#x27;s also the most decentralized, without that mechanism other crypto currencies have that the more you own, the stronger your power over the network. There&#x27;s still some power at the nodes level though, in that if they all coordinate they can shutdown the network for whatever reason. I also read it&#x27;s designed such that those metrics improve as the network grows.

                  But I&#x27;m not a specialist, I&#x27;m just interested in the technology and play with it a little, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt.

          2. busssard · · focus · HN ↗
            as a big fanboy of cardano back in the day, i have yet to see one that has managed to bridge the UX divide that has enough public trust.

            i know of some mutual credit systems that can work, but also here, it requires the trust of a big enough amount of people to trigger network effects!

        3. ychnd · · focus · HN ↗
          Well, SEPA? I know, I know, but you can get really far with just that &#x2F; build on top of that.
      2. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
        Europe does have domestic payment infrastructure, that&#x27;s in some ways more advanced than the US. That doesn&#x27;t matter because US sanctions don&#x27;t depend on control of the infrastructure itself. They have a recursive structure: if you don&#x27;t enforce US sanctions, or you trade with a peer that doesn&#x27;t, then you yourself become sanctioned. FATCA works the same way, as did the deployment of the global anti-money laundering system (a US invention, largely).
        1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
          So someone could make a European bank for sanctioned individuals, and this would be allowed to exist but would never be able to transfer money to another bank except in cash?
          1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
            Not even in cash. Also the executives would risk being arrested if they ever flew over the USA, etc.
            1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
              The thing about cash is that you don&#x27;t know where it came from.
      3. stirfish · · focus · HN ↗
        My new vocabulary word for today: Hormesis is a two-phased dose-response relationship whereby low-dose exposures have a beneficial effect and high-dose amounts are either inhibitory to function or toxic.

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Hormesis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Hormesis

    3. miroljub · · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

    4. NicoJuicy · · focus · HN ↗
      Let&#x27;s get rid of US dependency for governement infrastructure as quickly as possible please.
      1. toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
        In progress.

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49632470">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49632470

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49225112">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49225112

        1. NicoJuicy · · focus · HN ↗
          Yeah, all tenders for any governement in Europe seem to prioritize EU hosting too.

          Things are moving quick.

          1. toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
            We can go faster. To not is a choice.
    5. RunSet · · focus · HN ↗
      Killing the survivors of a shipwreck[0] is a textbook example of a war crime[1] and would explain why the liar-in-chief is so sweaty about the ICC.

      [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;national-security&#x2F;2025&#x2F;11&#x2F;28&#x2F;hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;national-security&#x2F;2025&#x2F;11&#x2F;28&#x2F;...

      [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mediaite.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;tv&#x2F;cnns-elie-honig-points-out-alleged-us-strike-on-defenseless-survivors-is-literally-a-textbook-example-of-a-war-crime&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mediaite.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;tv&#x2F;cnns-elie-honig-points-out...

      1. kdkforotot · · focus · HN ↗

        [dead]

      2. jermaustin1 · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; would explain why the liar-in-chief is so sweaty about the ICC.

        In what world do you think Trump even remembers about the double tap on a fishing vessel more than a day ago? He has no worry about anything, he has escaped prosecution for everything he&#x27;s ever done, and I doubt he believes he might face a tribunal at the Hague, if he even actually knows what the Hague, or a tribunal, or the ICC actually are.

        1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

          [deleted]

        2. RunSet · · focus · HN ↗
          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;china&#x2F;trump-calls-all-icc-members-resign-immediately-2026-09-22&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;china&#x2F;trump-calls-all-icc-memb...
      3. ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
        Trump isn&#x27;t sweaty about the ICC. There is next to 0% likelihood that an American president would be sent to the ICC to be tried or something. Anyone who thinks that might happen or thinks the ICC might have the power to compel such a scenario is quite delusional or just misunderstands how the world actually works.
        1. andyjohnson0 · · focus · HN ↗
          Trump has a lot of domestic enemies, and not just in politics. Unless he goes all-in and refuses to leave office, it must concern him that some future US president might decide to Milošević him to the ICC - either as score-settling or to simply get him out of the way.

          Personally I&#x27;d love to see Trump on trial at the ICC. Along with Putin and Netanyahu. And Blair (the former prime minister of my country) and George Bush.

          1. ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
            It&#x27;ll never happen. He is not losing any sleep over this. It&#x27;s just a fantasy about retribution.

            The United States doesn&#x27;t recognize the ICC. So there&#x27;s nothing for him to be referred to. If the ICC wants to create a legal case against him, all the US has to do is point at Xi Jingping and is ethnic cleansing programs and ask why they haven&#x27;t brought a legal case against him and tried to extradite him.

            Everyday Americans would not tolerate it. Remember that while many don&#x27;t like Trump and for good reason - me included - it would be viewed as a violation of American sovereignty which would not be tolerated. I would oppose it myself even though I think he belongs in jail over January 6th. But he&#x27;d belong in American jail, tried in our courts, under our legal system.

            I also have to add it is always interesting to hear the things people proclaim to care about. I don&#x27;t think everyday Americans even if they know about this alleged[1] double-tap, really care much or even think about it at all. I know I don&#x27;t. Has anyone brought a case to the ICC? I know that South American countries referred Maduro to the ICC. :)

            [1] It seems clear that it happened, and I&#x27;m not disputing that. But I say alleged simply because there has been no prosecution that I&#x27;m aware of. If there&#x27;s a better word choice than alleged I&#x27;d be happy to use it, it was just the one that I thought fit the sentence best.

            1. andyjohnson0 · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; The United States doesn&#x27;t recognize the ICC.

              Clearly. And I&#x27;m sure you&#x27;re right about US public sentiment.

              I was perhaps trying to make the point that powerful authoritarians like Trump always have to consider future threats because, unless they can stay in power forever, the future is where they are most vulnerable. Eventually they no longer have the energy to keep it going, and someone else is in charge - someone who then has more power than they do, and may not owe them any loyalty.

              The usual work-around is dynastic power, but I don&#x27;t see any signs of that this Trump&#x27;s case.

              &gt; But he&#x27;d belong in American jail, tried in our courts, under our legal system.

              For January 6th, sure. But the war with Iran, the Venezuela thing - they&#x27;re international crimes the like of which a non-trivial proportion of the world considers the ICC to have jurisdiction over.

              But anyway... if he doesn&#x27;t die in office he&#x27;ll realistically be too old to face justice in any court.

              1. ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
                &gt; I was perhaps trying to make the point that powerful authoritarians like Trump

                He&#x27;s authoritarian in many respects but he is still constrained by the rule of law. Where he loses legal cases he is forced to follow the law. He may have workarounds or gotchas or try again, but by and large I have yet to see any clear law-breaking violations. There is corruption which I see plain as day, but that&#x27;s separate from this view of Authoritarianism since you can be corrupt without being an authoritarian.

                &gt; But the war with Iran, the Venezuela thing - they&#x27;re international crimes the like of which a non-trivial proportion of the world considers the ICC to have jurisdiction over.

                This is why the US doesn&#x27;t recognize the ICC. Neither of these are international crimes. Maduro himself was referred to the ICC by other neighboring countries and there is an alleged sealed indictment by the ICC itself.

                Should the US have referred the Iranian government to the ICC for funding terrorists in the Middle East? What about violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? What would the ICC do? Did the ICC indict and try to arrest the members of Hamas who killed all those people in 2023? Maybe they did, but what were they going to do about it?

            2. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

              [deleted]

          2. SpicyLemonZest · · focus · HN ↗
            I&#x27;m one of Trump&#x27;s domestic enemies, I think we should imprison him and his minions the instant he&#x27;s thrown out of the White House, and I&#x27;m still not sure it&#x27;s realistic to send him to the ICC. It would radicalize a lot of people who have wrong but principled objections to it.
      4. jeroenhd · · focus · HN ↗
        The many war crimes the US has committed are the main reason they don&#x27;t want to participate or recognise the ICC. They don&#x27;t like it when their people get punished for their war crimes and will threaten their alies with invasion to make sure nobody dares to try.

        Murdering people on international waters is not even the latest war crime, IIRC the Hague Invasion Act was created because of the war crimes they were comitting in the Middle East 25 years ago.

        1. esseph · · focus · HN ↗
          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
    6. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

    7. kccqzy · · focus · HN ↗
      The United States has never recognized the jurisprudence of ICC anyways. So to the United States these judges are just regular foreigners making decisions they don’t like. Sanctions are an appropriate tool for the United States to meddle in foreign affairs anyways. For countries that support ICC, avoiding United States is also appropriate.

      Personally I don’t really have much faith in the ICC; its premise is flawed since great powers will never be deferential to a foreign court system anyways.

      1. ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; The United States has never recognized the jurisprudence of ICC anyways.

        True, neither has China, India, or Russia.

        1. SupLockDef · · focus · HN ↗
          The list of the greatest countries, always the same.
        2. colechristensen · · focus · HN ↗
          Yes, the world powers didn&#x27;t give away sovereignty to a foreign court while countries without a place on that list did.
      2. muvlon · · focus · HN ↗
        And reducing exposure to US sanctions (for example by investing into alternatives to Windows or Visa&#x2F;MasterCard) is an appropriate response for the affected countries.
        1. ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
          Including Russia, right?
          1. muvlon · · focus · HN ↗
            Sure, but that&#x27;s nothing new. Russia has always been investing into domestic alternatives, even going to great lengths to build their own CPU architecture and such. But they&#x27;ve been a sworn enemy of the West so that&#x27;s nothing surprising, and neither is China doing the same. The EU so far was considered firmly in the sphere of influence of the US, which is why this development is interesting.
            1. ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
              Right - but American sanctions have a big effect. What happens when that power goes away? Who is going to sanction Russia?

              You can complain about well America is sanctioning countries I disagree with, but it also affects countries you would agree with. When we don&#x27;t have sanctions power perhaps military force gets used more.

              Regardless of what happens both the EU and America are still within each other&#x27;s spheres. That&#x27;s not going to change anytime soon. We&#x27;ve gone through much worse.

      3. artnanika · · focus · HN ↗
        No, your premise is flawed. According to your logic, all international treaties and bodies shouldn&#x27;t exist either because great powers can ignore them at will just like how they ignore the ICC. The US for instance can ignore the Geneva Conventions willy-nilly and not be punished for it since to the US government, its own laws (which allow for war crimes) will always supersede foreign treaties, does that mean the Geneva Conventions shouldn&#x27;t exist?

        The ICC is a step in the right direction in the post-WW2 world, a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.

        1. ambicapter · · focus · HN ↗
          &gt; a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.

          I mean, they&#x27;re right. International rules-based order is a threat to war criminals. The real shame is certain countries having the power to enforce rules-based order and not doing so (or failing to do so).

          1. artnanika · · focus · HN ↗
            Most countries around the world have no problem extraditing their own criminals for crimes committed elsewhere (including the US), but it seems like countries like the United States and Russia fear that extraditing their war criminals would set a precedent that could cause their entire governments to collapse.

            Is it the people that make up the system, or the system that makes the people? In a country with rule of law, any individual in the government should be extraditable (for valid reasons) without it being a threat to the overall system.

        2. kccqzy · · focus · HN ↗
          No. I’m not saying all international treaties and bodies shouldn’t exist. That’s a wild misinterpretation of what I said. I said that international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist. The emphasis is on court system. Conflicts between countries on anything including crimes should ideally be dealt with using diplomatic means, not a court trial. That’s why the United Nations Security Council works. It’s not a court.
          1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
            Isn&#x27;t this just another diplomatic mean? The ICC can&#x27;t enforce anything, it&#x27;s up to countries to care. The only difference between the ICC and the Someonebaggy Criminal Court is that the governments of places like France care slightly about what the ICC says.
          2. megous · · focus · HN ↗
            Does it work, though? What is the standard for &quot;works&quot; here?
            1. kccqzy · · focus · HN ↗
              Wide participation by nations, even at the expense of occasional failure for the nations to reach a consensus.
          3. artnanika · · focus · HN ↗
            That&#x27;s an arbitrary statement to make (&quot;I believe international treaties and bodies should exist, but make an exception for criminal courts&quot;). I believe that criminal courts should matter even more than non-criminal courts such as the UNCLOS&#x27; court, mostly because even centuries ago, treaties related to war crimes have always been seen as a bigger priority for most empires and nations than other types of treaties have been. The ICC is our best way to enforce treaties like the Geneva Conventions.

            The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals and try to make their opposition look like it stems from legal issues with international jurisdiction, and not the truth which is to protect their country&#x27;s ability to commit war crimes unabated.

            1. andsoitis · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals

              We don’t have good enough contemporary global polling to confidently say that a majority personally supports the ICC.

              However, I suspect you’re right that most people probably support the idea of the ICC but countries choose not to be part for a variety of reasons, other that “harboring war criminals”.

              The following countries are not party to the Rome Statute, which is what established the ICC:

              United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

          4. JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt; international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist

            ICJ and ECJ seem fine. I agree that the ICC is toothless (unless it’s investigating Africa for some reason). But if countries agree to its jurisdiction that’s basically glorified arbitration. The Philippine with Duterte show the benefits to a population to submitting to jurisdiction. I bet a lot of Americans being abused by ICE wish we had a check on our political leaders outside our own legal system.

            1. gadders · · focus · HN ↗
              The ECJ is very much not fine.
              1. JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
                &gt; ECJ is very much not fine

                Sure. You know what, I don&#x27;t know enough about it to argue if it is. What I can say is it isn&#x27;t toothless. International treaties can create robust judicial systems.

          5. tremon · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt; international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist

            The first &quot;supranational&quot; court system was created with the USA fully on-board: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nuremburg_trials" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nuremburg_trials

            In fact, they liked it so much that they re-enacted it at home: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Subsequent_Nuremberg_trials" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Subsequent_Nuremberg_trials

          6. hvb2 · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt; That’s why the United Nations Security Council works.

            Saying the security council works is... A perspective.

            During the general assembly there were plenty of comments as to how it&#x27;s not representative at all. There are 5 members with veto power (us, Russia, uk, France, china), why these? Because they won the WW2? The whole southern hemisphere doesn&#x27;t hold veto power.

            The security council works very well, if you&#x27;re one of the 5 permanent members.

        3. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
          This is partly true. There was never a country that didn&#x27;t ignore international law whenever it was to its advantage.
          1. vincnetas · · focus · HN ↗
            you can just skip &quot;international law&quot; here. Any countries did what was to their advantage.
            1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
              Even more broadly, anyone with military power. Which includes many cartels and mafias.
        4. PowerElectronix · · focus · HN ↗
          The principle of anarchy in IR still applies. Those treaties mean nothing as soon as any actor sees acting against them advanced their goals more than abiding by them.

          International treaties and institutions are generally good to vertebrate and regulate the interactions between countries. But one must not forget they are make believe as they are unenforceable. So when you threaten to arrest and prosecute allies of the US outside the legal system of the US, you are declaring yourself an enemy of the US and treated as such.

        5. lightedman · · focus · HN ↗
          &quot;The US for instance can ignore the Geneva Conventions willy-nilly&quot;

          In many cases this is simply because we did not sign and ratify parts of the convention updates, thus we are not a signatory to those statutes. No way to truly punish those that aren&#x27;t willing participants, except to make them unwilling participants.

        6. davidjytang · · focus · HN ↗
          Slippery Slope.
      4. vladms · · focus · HN ↗
        I do indeed wonder why do they care about ICC considering they did not recognized it. One reason is that in fact that some of this &quot;great powers&quot; are much more &quot;weaker&quot; than they pretend, and that someone exposing something bad that they do will still have some effect on them.

        Or (not sure if better or worse), they the &quot;great powers&quot; are stupid and they did not hear of the &quot;Streisand effect&quot;.

        1. jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
          Because they know full well that even the existence of the ICC is a threat to them, it allows people to point out that they have not subscribed to the fact that this court exists and that should have a power that they&#x27;ve been denied. If the court did not exist at all they could pretend to be like every other country.
        2. culi · · focus · HN ↗
          Because 165 countries are signed on to the Rome Statute and are required to arrest war criminals (as deemed by ICC) like Netanyahu if they step foot in their country.

          That&#x27;s not nothing.

      5. kannanvijayan · · focus · HN ↗
        The idea of foreign entities holding American leaders to account when Americans are unable to do it themselves is a fundamental emotional taboo for many.
      6. wongarsu · · focus · HN ↗
        We did have the Nuremberg trials to prosecute Nazis after their empire collapsed. The ICC is a formalization of that principle on more solid legal footing

        Obviously its power is limited when it comes to prosecuting people currently in power or people that have favorable standing with their current host country. It can only make the live of those people a little less pleasant by issuing arrest warrants that limit their ability to travel internationally. But governments do fall from time to time, and when that happens the ICC provides a solid mechanism for prosecuting them for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in a way that is fair and has rules that were solidly established before the crime was committed

        1. wafflemaker · · focus · HN ↗
          Too bad that such trials are often evidence based.

          And in a certain sea-side part of a certain country, there&#x27;s active bulldozing and paving over hard white leftovers of evidence of the misshaps that could later be prosecuted if they weren&#x27;t so effectively crushed and hidden.

          Still, some justice is still justice.

      7. babypuncher · · focus · HN ↗
        The only reason the US doesn&#x27;t like the ICC is because we have leadership guilty of crimes the ICC was created to prosecute.
    8. tradertef · · focus · HN ↗
      The amount of damage US is doing to itself to protect a genocidal regime is unbelievable.
    9. jimnotgym · · focus · HN ↗
      Cash all of a sudden seems attractive
      1. ourmandave · · focus · HN ↗
        Will they accept Trump $1 coins?
    10. noosphr · · focus · HN ↗
      I would like to thank the US for single handedly killing the EU cashless society plans.

      I would like to request the US sanctions all members of the EU parliament asap.

      1. dzogchen · · focus · HN ↗
        Do you mean accelerate the digital euro plans?
        1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
          talking about &quot;digital currency&quot; is always so frustrating because you never know what the other person means. Almost all money is already digital.
          1. dzogchen · · focus · HN ↗
            Well, that&#x27;s that the European Central Bank calls it. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ecb.europa.eu&#x2F;euro&#x2F;digital_euro&#x2F;html&#x2F;index.en.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ecb.europa.eu&#x2F;euro&#x2F;digital_euro&#x2F;html&#x2F;index.en.ht...
            1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
              Error 503?
          2. pnt12 · · focus · HN ↗
            Digital euro is an ongoing initiative by the ECB that aims to reach the whole European union.
      2. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
        Unfortunately no. The EU loves doing these kinds of sanctions itself and has spent decades withdrawing high value notes from circulation. There are thousands of people sanctioned by the EU:

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.europa.eu&#x2F;apps&#x2F;eusanctionstracker&#x2F;individuals&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.europa.eu&#x2F;apps&#x2F;eusanctionstracker&#x2F;individuals&#x2F;

        An example of the EU doing similar sanctions would be Jacques Baud, a Swiss general sanctioned for &quot;promoting conspiracy narratives and false claims about the war in Ukraine&quot;. The sanctions left him unable to buy anything including food. As he had a wife and family, the EU sanctioned them as well to prevent them helping him.

        The same batch of sanctions also added an American citizen to the list, basically for running websites the EU doesn&#x27;t like and considers fake news, and a French citizen, for &quot;spreading conspiracy theories&quot;:

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;?uri=OJ:L_202502568" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;?uri=OJ:L...

        Cash doesn&#x27;t help because there is no notice and most people don&#x27;t keep enough cash on them to survive long enough, especially as there is no way to get unsanctioned - the entire process runs outside the judicial system and depends only on the whims of the Commission. The results are utterly brutal:

        &gt; Baud spoke in particular about how the sanction restricted his daily life. The measure caught him completely unprepared; from one day to the next, his credit cards, insurance policies, and bank accounts—including those in Switzerland, even though it did not adopt the sanction—were blocked. He could no longer make payments, and even shopping was impossible. &quot;I survived, that&#x27;s the only way to put it, thanks to my neighbors. They delivered food to me,&quot; Baud said.

        Under the sanctions regime, the Geneva resident, who lives in Brussels, is entitled to support intended to cover his basic needs. According to him, the Belgian authorities granted his application at the beginning of February, but three months passed before the banks implemented it. Baud is also prohibited from leaving Belgium and therefore cannot travel to his home country.

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nzz.ch&#x2F;schweiz&#x2F;ich-ueberlebte-dank-meinen-nachbarn-der-sanktionierte-schweizer-jacques-baud-meldet-sich-zu-wort-die-eu-widerspricht-ld.10013842" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nzz.ch&#x2F;schweiz&#x2F;ich-ueberlebte-dank-meinen-nachba...

        The EU doesn&#x27;t have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about sanctions. The ICC judges only lost access to some emails and other nice-to-haves, the US didn&#x27;t stop them buying food or water.

        1. arw0n · · focus · HN ↗
          Even crazier, they sanctioned a German journalist of turkish decent due to support of the palestianian cause &#x2F; support of terrorist groups. [0] Even if you think he supports Hamas as a terrorist group (which is questionable), these sanctions are decided by executive committee, without a judge involved, and they make it impossible for the person to have banking, work, rent, or buy within the EU. It is essentially a social death sentence, worth than going to jail, and no due process whatsoever is involved.

          [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru

          1. mike_hearn · · focus · HN ↗
            Yeah they&#x27;ve done a bunch of Israel&#x2F;Gaza related sanctions actually, in both directions. And there are way more sanctions like Baud&#x27;s, for saying anything the EU thinks might be somehow advantageous to Russia. Only a few cases reach public attention. You can just scroll through the list and see.

            e.g. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.europa.eu&#x2F;apps&#x2F;eusanctionstracker&#x2F;subjects&#x2F;185512" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.europa.eu&#x2F;apps&#x2F;eusanctionstracker&#x2F;subjects&#x2F;1855...

            &gt; Daniella Weiss is the Director of the Nachala Movement (“Nachala”). Nachala has the aim of promoting Jewish settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank.

            or <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;?uri=CELEX%3A32025R1278&amp;qid=1751352470824" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;?uri=CELEX%3A...

            &gt; Nathalie Yamb is a social media influencer. Since the Sochi summit she attended in 2019, Nathalie Yamb has been an outspoken supporter of Russia, adopting Moscow’s language and targeting France and the West in particular, with a view to ousting them from the African continent. She has specific ties with AFRIC, an organisation linked to Russian private military companies.

            She has links with an organization that has links. She &quot;adopts Moscow&#x27;s language&quot;.

            or <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;?uri=OJ:L_202600647" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;?uri=OJ:L...

            &gt; Through appearances at symbolic conflict sites, interviews with Russian television, publications on his X account (which has 18 100 followers) and contributions to Kremlin-funded outlets such as International Reporters, he amplifies Kremlin narratives that distort the realities of Russia’s war

            or <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;?uri=OJ:L_202500965" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;eur-lex.europa.eu&#x2F;legal-content&#x2F;EN&#x2F;TXT&#x2F;?uri=OJ:L_202...

            &gt; [Thomas Röper, a German war correspondant] legitimises Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory by serving as an election “observer”

            Observing elections in Russia controlled territory might mean you can no longer buy food.

            The ICC judge got sanctioned because he&#x27;s trying to arrest a head of a US allied state. The EU does sanctions vastly harsher - outright deadly - against random nobodies, triggered by things as minor as posting opinions to X, or merely being related to someone who did. It&#x27;s on a different level.

      3. Cider9986 · · focus · HN ↗
        What are you referring to? Cashless is terrible so that would be good but I don&#x27;t know what you mean.
    11. wafflemaker · · focus · HN ↗
      It would be appropriate to mention what exactly the ICC judges were punished for. If it didn&#x27;t come with such a high karma risk, I would have mentioned it myself.

      Hope that curious will find out on their own accord.

      1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
        They were sanctioned for investigating Israel&#x27;s genocide of Palestinians.
      2. jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
        They were sanctioned for doing their jobs.
      3. JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; would be appropriate to mention what exactly the ICC judges were punished for

        I’m personally critical of the notion of the ICC, and I can’t come up with a legitimate reason we’d sanction them. America isn’t party to the Rome Statute. And the ICC has never even remotely threatened to do anything to any American.

      4. justin66 · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; If it didn&#x27;t come with such a high karma risk, I would have mentioned it myself.

        What worst case scenario are you envisioning that would somehow justify censoring yourself? The text of one of your comments will turn grey?

        1. wafflemaker · · focus · HN ↗
          It took me 5 years to get above 500 and be able to vote on comments. Then I&#x27;ve learned that over 1k you can tell how much karma a comment has and it was my silly dream ever since.

          Speaking out about Hague and Nuremberg invitees is important, but it comes with risk of becoming like them or people arguing for them. (When fighting monsters one must be wary not to become a monster themselves.) It&#x27;s just more hate that doesn&#x27;t bring back to life executed children.

    12. 627467 · · focus · HN ↗
      &gt; In the country where they live

      When people outsource everything this is what happens

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.