> 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.

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.

> 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.

China is pretty aggressive about expanding their borders, annexing islands and such. I doubt that borders are super-sacred to them.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

> 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.

>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.

> 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.

> The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts.

I think it's a good idea not to look at Twitter OR Apple analysts to help understand the Ukraine situation. Twitter is a perfect place to get breaking news, hot takes, and memes. Apple analysts may be very intelligent people. But, I want to wait for longer, more meticulous writing by people on the ground, or people with a deep background in the domain, and a long time to think about it.

I am pointing out two example which HN readers will likely be familiar. Along with the WSJ article. As these people are shaping the narrative.

Trying to read China from what they do on the outside, such as diplomatic speeches and UN action, compared to what they do on the inside with their State / social media, supply chain and business support shows a completely different picture.

China has not only banned all pro Ukraine speeches on their Social media, showing support of Russia and claiming it is war started by US. If any of these have soften since the war started or toned down one might argue China could be changing stance. But they didn't. They double down on Russia. The Chinese are so furious to the point it has now become a positive ( or negative ) feedback loop within their own circle.

I am baffled as to why most in the west dont see it. Even when presented as it is.

As the WSJ article correctly points out, China immediately tried to caution the Russians in their invasion, China also never recognized the peoples republics of Luhansk and Donetzk, and didn't even accept Russia's annexation of Crimea. In the UN, China and others abstained instead of voting with Russia, and China on multiple occasions stressed the independence and importance of territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is still curious how vocal they were on sino-russian friendship in the lead up to the invasion, and how, according to US intelligence, China asked Russia to delay their invasion until after the Olympics.

A maybe reasonable guess would be that they, too, expected this war to be over before any large response from the West could be mustered. Then the whole thing would be out of the news-cycle relatively quickly, and while Russia would still be hit with harsh sanctions, China would have a) a russian economy even more dependent on them and b) a blueprint for what to expect in the case of war with Taiwan.

China's stance since the invasion isn't really unique though; India, Brazil, Vietnam and quite a few others also chose to abstain from the UN motion to condemn the invasion and call for an immediate ceasefire. - In fact, countries "representing" more than half the global population abstained. These countries also try to balance their response, while being pressured to show solidarity with Ukraine by their population internally.

Brazil didn't abstain.

Those cancerous Twitter login modals are not letting me read the whole thread but I don't agree that China has much to lose here.

They get a far weaker Russia much more dependent on them now economically. Russia is rich in fossil fuels which China lacks and has some advantages in defence and space tech which China can easily get their hands on.

CCP might not be that confident about taking Taiwan now but they get a massive economic boost and a possible big brother relationship with Russia now.

Replace twitter.com with nitter.net for a more pleasant experience, i.e. https://nitter.net/neilcybart/status/1500825861242724352

Thanks, I wish we didn't need to do this and could use Reddit and Twitter like they used to exist a decade back.

Yeah sorry I am still trying to get into the habit or replacing twitter with nitter. Or could HN have the option to automatically replace it with nitter would be even better.

Install https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ and you can set up rules to redirect from twitter to nitter.

China is ascendant on the international stage, with trade and diplomatic relations growing rapidly. Russia is near inconsequential compared to their existing economy, trade, and clout. China is at risk of becoming, as someone else put it, the leader of the gang of international misfits. Meanwhile the West is pulling rapidly together while neutral countries are skewing towards their way.

I can’t claim to be an expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that China’s action or inaction on Russia will have huge implications on their next decade and beyond.

> Russia is near inconsequential compared to their existing economy, trade, and clout.

Russia is inconsequential compared to their trade and economy but not clout.

But looking at the overall figures is just partial picture. China imported over 10M barrels of oil per day last year. [1] At current prices of Brent, i.e. an import bill of $1.4 billion per day or $500 billion per year. Imagine getting a discount on that.

Also, Russia still has tech advantages over China in some areas, the best fighter aircraft in PLA's force uses Russian made engines. They rely on Russia for their Air defense systems, the S400.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-crude-oil...

Sure but a far weaker Russia is what? The worlds 20th largest economy, with a history of having a geopolitical chip on its shoulder (I think most observers would agree that the Russian people would die before becoming ‘chinas little brother’) ?

> think most observers would agree that the Russian people would die before becoming ‘chinas little brother’

That is only if they would realise it, if the Russian propoganda works at home, China might be the only true friend they have in the tough times to come.

> And as usual, Benedict Evans has much better take on the situation. Mostly likely because of his major in History.

Which is?

It would seem to be two tweets with maybe 3 to 6 sentences (depending on if you think one word and a period is a sentence).

That's Twitter for you...

>They will likely look to limit their bet

By opening their whole economy and supply chains to Russia? Niel sounds clueless from the claim you posted.

One thing to note is China has always been pretty obtuse / cautious / isolationist about foreign policy that doesn't absolutely directly involve them. In recent decades that has changed ... but their public approach sometimes seems cautious in some places ... conflicting / less cautious in others.