6 ms·

> And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Graham ) I was actually surpris

> And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Graham ) I was actually surprised China didn’t vote against the UN Resolution by the Generally Assembly condemning Russia’s violation of the UN Charter by the use of force and violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution with Russia and 5 other Countries speaks loudly and volumes about China’s political unwillingness to support Russia’s acts in contravention of the UN Charter. Furthermore, China did not support Russia in a similar Resolution before the UN Security Council leaving Russia as the sole permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power to vote against the Resolution. If anything it looks like China’s lack of political will to expressly support Russia in the UN General Assembly and Security Council seems to have legitimately surprised Russia. However, it is very difficult to discern whether China miscalculated the response of the international community or they simply played Russia by riding both sides of the fence until push came to shove. My guess is the later as I’m sure Russia was cautiously optimistic about China’s support while simultaneously aware of the likelihood they could not count of China, and I would go so far as to say the odds are Russia even has military contingency plans in place in the instance China becomes opportunistic with respect to their own boarder disputes with Russia during the chaos.

ashwagary 5y ago
>However, it is very difficult to discern whether China miscalculated the response of the international community or they simply played Russia by riding both sides of the fence until push came to shove. These arent the only two choices, this binary approach is more reflective of your limited thinking than reality. Abstaining from votes that can't be won speaks volumes. Why take a position when not taking one is just as effective? There is a reason people don't always show their folded hands in poker.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > Abstaining from votes that can't be won speaks volumes. The UN General Assembly Resolution condemning Russia overwhelmingly passed. The UN Security Council Resolution on the other hand never had a chance of passing, but the international community still went forward with the vote they didn’t collectively “fold” knowing no matter what it wouldn’t pass. In either case a member of the UN abstaining from a vote is not the same as folding in poker, it’s not about winning or losing as shown by the willingness to submit a Resolution for vote by the Security Council, because its about standing in the international community, where abstaining on a vote is itself a political statement not a “fold” that will hide their hand.
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    >Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution >the international community still went forward with the vote they didn’t collectively “fold” We were talking about China's vote specifically. Your unecessary and unwarranted pivot is very telling. >it’s not about winning or losing as shown by the willingness to submit a Resolution for vote by the Security Council I disagree and this is an assumption on your part, not a forgone conclusion.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      > I disagree and this is an assumption on your part, not a forgone conclusion. You’ve had a bizarre tone replying to me from the beginning, and yet your post reveals you don’t even know how the UN Security Council works if you don’t agree that the Security Council vote wasn’t a forgone conclusion. Feel free to ask if you don’t know why it was impossible to pass.
retrac 5y ago
> the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution with Russia China has, very consistently for decades now, maintained that every nation's borders are Super Duper Sacred and Never Ever to be challenged. That every sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its UN-recognized borders. This is for obvious reasons over Xinjiang and Taiwan and Tibet and etc. Abstention was their only realistic option. And quite in character. China abstains a great deal at the Security Council, if you look at the record.
- actuator 5y ago
  > China has, very consistently for decades now, maintained that every nation's borders are Super Duper Sacred and Never Ever to be challenged. That every sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its UN-recognized borders Well, Ukraine's borders are recognised by UN and CCP respecting others borders is simply not true. Just ask their neighbours.
  - t-3 5y ago
    The thing is, China's claimed borders include those areas. This is politics, not a mission for truth and ethical conduct. Their definitions are entirely self-serving and certainly differ from those of their enemies.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  China is pretty aggressive about expanding their borders, annexing islands and such. I doubt that borders are super-sacred to them.
zarzavat 5y ago
China has several territorial disputes with other countries and several regions that want to break away. Russia’s blatant violation of another country’s sovereignty is completely against China’s foreign policy objectives. It’s not surprising at all that they abstained, and Russia was tripping (to use the diplomatic term) if they thought that China would support them.
tomohawk 5y ago
China may be angling to use the situation to enhance their diplomatic status. They have pretty good relations with both Russia and Ukraine, and are not involved in NATO, so they could position themselves as a deal broker.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Didn't surprise me at all. China has generally been neutral in these things between the USA and Russia. They will trade with most people despite politics. I don't they care if it's a totalitarian state (Russia) or democratic state (USA-sorta) as long as there is business to be done.

ashwagary 5y ago

>However, it is very difficult to discern whether China miscalculated the response of the international community or they simply played Russia by riding both sides of the fence until push came to shove. These arent the only two choices, this binary approach is more reflective of your limited thinking than reality. Abstaining from votes that can't be won speaks volumes. Why take a position when not taking one is just as effective? There is a reason people don't always show their folded hands in poker.

throwawaycities 5y ago
> Abstaining from votes that can't be won speaks volumes. The UN General Assembly Resolution condemning Russia overwhelmingly passed. The UN Security Council Resolution on the other hand never had a chance of passing, but the international community still went forward with the vote they didn’t collectively “fold” knowing no matter what it wouldn’t pass. In either case a member of the UN abstaining from a vote is not the same as folding in poker, it’s not about winning or losing as shown by the willingness to submit a Resolution for vote by the Security Council, because its about standing in the international community, where abstaining on a vote is itself a political statement not a “fold” that will hide their hand.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  >Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution >the international community still went forward with the vote they didn’t collectively “fold” We were talking about China's vote specifically. Your unecessary and unwarranted pivot is very telling. >it’s not about winning or losing as shown by the willingness to submit a Resolution for vote by the Security Council I disagree and this is an assumption on your part, not a forgone conclusion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    > I disagree and this is an assumption on your part, not a forgone conclusion. You’ve had a bizarre tone replying to me from the beginning, and yet your post reveals you don’t even know how the UN Security Council works if you don’t agree that the Security Council vote wasn’t a forgone conclusion. Feel free to ask if you don’t know why it was impossible to pass.

retrac 5y ago

> the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution with Russia China has, very consistently for decades now, maintained that every nation's borders are Super Duper Sacred and Never Ever to be challenged. That every sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its UN-recognized borders. This is for obvious reasons over Xinjiang and Taiwan and Tibet and etc. Abstention was their only realistic option. And quite in character. China abstains a great deal at the Security Council, if you look at the record.

actuator 5y ago
> China has, very consistently for decades now, maintained that every nation's borders are Super Duper Sacred and Never Ever to be challenged. That every sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its UN-recognized borders Well, Ukraine's borders are recognised by UN and CCP respecting others borders is simply not true. Just ask their neighbours.
- t-3 5y ago
  The thing is, China's claimed borders include those areas. This is politics, not a mission for truth and ethical conduct. Their definitions are entirely self-serving and certainly differ from those of their enemies.
HWR_14 5y ago
China is pretty aggressive about expanding their borders, annexing islands and such. I doubt that borders are super-sacred to them.

zarzavat 5y ago

China has several territorial disputes with other countries and several regions that want to break away. Russia’s blatant violation of another country’s sovereignty is completely against China’s foreign policy objectives. It’s not surprising at all that they abstained, and Russia was tripping (to use the diplomatic term) if they thought that China would support them.

tomohawk 5y ago

China may be angling to use the situation to enhance their diplomatic status. They have pretty good relations with both Russia and Ukraine, and are not involved in NATO, so they could position themselves as a deal broker.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Didn't surprise me at all. China has generally been neutral in these things between the USA and Russia. They will trade with most people despite politics. I don't they care if it's a totalitarian state (Russia) or democratic state (USA-sorta) as long as there is business to be done.