• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      The Russian deputy ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, warned reporters on Thursday: “We are not satisfied with anything which doesn’t call for an immediate ceasefire.”

      He argued that the effect of making a ceasefire conditional on the release of all hostages would be to endorse leaving hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians exposed to continued Israeli attacks until the point when Hamas and Isreal reached an agreement.

      In the chamber, the Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya told the security council the resolution was a “hypocritical spectacle” that put no real pressure on Israel over its war crimes. Moscow also said the episode showed the US administration was more interested in throwing a bone to American voters and persuading a domestic audience it was being even-handed in the crisis. Source

      So. Mission Accomplished.

    • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh yay! Biden is on the same side as Putin and Xi, in disagreement with the rest of the world.

      Not quite the win I think you’re going for there.

      • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The United Nations Security Council has failed to pass a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as part of a hostage deal after Russia and China, who are permanent members, voted against the measure proposed by the United States.

        It’s literally the first paragraph of the article.

          • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Biden, through the US delegation, proposed this resolution, which Putin and Xi, through their delegations, vetoed. They’re literally on opposite sides of the issue.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              6 months ago

              I was explaining how they’re the same. You know, for someone who likes explaining the obvious, you really did miss out on this obvious point being made, twice.

              • jumjummy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                So because the US vetoed a measure earlier, them proposing a ceasefire now is grounds for Russia/China to veto?

                You sound like someone who thinks “no u” is a strong argument.

                • metaldream@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  They vetoing it because the US proposed a conditional ceasefire while Russia and China want an immediate unconditional ceasefire.