3 ms·

>However, it is very difficult to discern whether China miscalculated the response of the international community or they simply played Russia by riding both si

>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.

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.