If there’s anything ironic about being so scared of telling the wrong joke that you run straight into the arms of the...

This paper examines whataboutery in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and analyses its impact on international dialogue. While clarifying function of the whataboutism (WA) is needed to reach a mutual understanding in the all-embracing discussions at the Council, the persistent use of this argument harms the criticality of discussions and isolates the argument’s user. Acknowledging the specificity of whataboutery in international politics, the author scrutinises the rhetorical patterns of accusation and counteraccusation in Russia’s rhetoric in UNSC. The examination establishes WAs as a response to accusations an unsatisfied status-seeking actor will likely employ when its promoted narrative is not believed. The investigation draws on International Relations theory, ethics, and rhetoric, and relies on a combination of research methods. This study emphasises the need for further research on rhetorical practices in international diplomacy and calls for more attention to studying reforming rhetorical practices as part of UNSC reform.