This chapter builds the theoretical scaffold for analysing whataboutism and tu quoque in the UN Security Council. It surveys how realism, liberalism, constructivism, and other theories conceptualise argument and norm change, drawing on Habermas (1984) and Risse (2000) to situate communicative action alongside bargaining. The Council is treated as a deliberative arena where power, rules, and audiences intersect. The chapter develops the dual reading of WA/TQ—as clarifying moves that test norm consistency and as character attacks that polarise—and foregrounds diplomats’ performances. It motivates the Russia case, clarifies shared lifeworlds and interpretive communities, and distils theoretical sensitivity required by constructivist grounded theory.