4 ms·

>This last one is increasingly optional in the post-Cold War geopolitical climate. Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty o

>This last one is increasingly optional in the post-Cold War geopolitical climate. Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty obvious this framework no longer exists. The UN made sense when the security council members had some incentive to use the UN system, but when their foreign policy is to circumvent international law at any opportunity, then its easy for them to sidestep it. Autocratic states ultimately can't work with democratic ones. Its unfair to expect one group to 'follow the rules' and another to go off willy-nilly when it serves them. There's no enforcer here, they're supposed to be voluntarily enforcing themselves and obviously that's not happening. I won't even go into how easy it is for democratic nations to game the system either. Bush's run up to Iraq had all the hallmarks of the 'legitimate' UN: a debate, an airing of evidence, a vote, etc. Ultimately, it was just as hollow as an autocratic state annexing territory and telling everyone to piss off. I suspect the UN has long fallen into pageantry and will never recover. It probably made sense to keep the US and the USSR from nuking each other, but today it lacks purpose and any real spirit of participation. It now exists to bully smaller nations who don't have a permanent seat in the security council, and because of that, it will never go away.

hackuser 11y ago
> Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty obvious this framework no longer exists A pretty big overstatement. The only cross-border war between nations I can think of is Russia and Ukraine. If perfection is our standard, then of course the UN and everything else is a failure. Otherwise, the UN is doing this job effectively. > The UN made sense when the security council members had some incentive to use the UN system, but when their foreign policy is to circumvent international law at any opportunity, then its easy for them to sidestep it. Autocratic states ultimately can't work with democratic ones. Its unfair to expect one group to 'follow the rules' and another to go off willy-nilly when it serves them. There's no enforcer here, they're supposed to be voluntarily enforcing themselves and obviously that's not happening. The golden age you imagine never existed. It's always been this way. This is the way the UN, and politics in general, works. I wish it were otherwise and we should work to improve it, but it does work, unless we measure it by the standards of ideals and perfection - and then what human institution (or human being) measures up?
- jussij 11y ago
  >> Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty obvious this framework no longer exists > A pretty big overstatement. The only cross-border war between nations I can think of is Russia and Ukraine. Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government. Russia has never like the fact Ukraine decided to leave the Soviet Union. I suspect the reference to China refers to how China is unilaterally taking ownership of the South China Sea using it military strength, with total disregard to international law. It might also be in reference to how China handles Tibet, or how they are trying to kill democracy in Hong Kong, or maybe how they have their eyes on Taiwan where they claim it is rightfully theirs. > The golden age you imagine never existed. It's always been this way. This is the way the UN, and politics in general, works. I wish it were otherwise and we should work to improve it, but it does work I suspect drzaiusapelord disagrees with you when you say it is working and I would say I tend to agree with him. The modern day UN is nothing more than a very expensive bureaucracy that in reality achieves very little. Maybe it has never worked?
  - dgudkov 11y ago
    >Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government. This is correct, although it's not so covert. Russia has built in Eastern Ukraine a full-scale army of 40K troops with 600 tanks and thousands of APCs. It sends hundreds of railway cars with military supplies across the border. The army is better equipped and trained than many NATO countries in Europe. At this scale it simply can't be covert, and it's certainly a war.
  - vkou 11y ago
    > Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government. Which is different from US involvement in its sphere of influence how, exactly? Presence of boots on the ground?
    - 11y ago
theworstshill 11y ago
The biggest democratic state in history grabbed Hawai and occupied the Philippines. But now in the 21st century, since the world is "civilized", lets change the rules. Awfully close to patent trolling. Anyway UN is doing its work fine. Its somewhat useless, but better than nothing.
- munificent 11y ago
  > Its somewhat useless, but better than nothing. That's not a glowing review for an organization who's budget was >$12 billion in 2012. [1] To what better use could that money have been put? [1]: http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/budget.shtml http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/budget.shtml http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/pdfs/oppba/Regular%20Budget.pdf http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/pdfs/oppba/Regular%20Budget.pdf
- kesselvon 11y ago
  So when did the Philippines become a U.S. state?
  - hartpuff 11y ago
    Did he say it became a US state?
afterburner 11y ago
Russia and China are permanent veto members of the Security Council. That the members of the Security Council had far greater freedom of action was always baked into the system, and was required to get buy in from the the most powerful nations, without which the UN would fail (see: League of Nations).
- douche 11y ago
  The Security Council is nothing more than the principle members of the Allies at the conclusion of World War 2. Communist China didn't replace the Nationalists on the Security Council until 22 years after Chiang Kai-shek was driven off the mainland onto Taiwan. Since Mao and his old guard were doing their damndest to replicate the starvation and political purging of the Soviet Union in the 20s, it probably didn't matter that much...
  - afterburner 11y ago
    "The Security Council is nothing more than the principle members of the Allies at the conclusion of World War 2." Ie. the most powerful nations at the time, without which a second League of Nations experiment would be doomed to fail.
dfkf 11y ago
> Autocratic states ultimately can't work with democratic ones. Its unfair to expect one group to 'follow the rules' and another to go off willy-nilly when it serves them. Libya's "no fly" zone, Iraq, Kosovo, nationalistic coup against a democratically elected president.... etc etc etc I don't even what to say when reading texts like this. It's like democracy is the racism of the 21st century. White infallible democrats versus autocratic niggers.

hackuser 11y ago

> Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty obvious this framework no longer exists A pretty big overstatement. The only cross-border war between nations I can think of is Russia and Ukraine. If perfection is our standard, then of course the UN and everything else is a failure. Otherwise, the UN is doing this job effectively. > The UN made sense when the security council members had some incentive to use the UN system, but when their foreign policy is to circumvent international law at any opportunity, then its easy for them to sidestep it. Autocratic states ultimately can't work with democratic ones. Its unfair to expect one group to 'follow the rules' and another to go off willy-nilly when it serves them. There's no enforcer here, they're supposed to be voluntarily enforcing themselves and obviously that's not happening. The golden age you imagine never existed. It's always been this way. This is the way the UN, and politics in general, works. I wish it were otherwise and we should work to improve it, but it does work, unless we measure it by the standards of ideals and perfection - and then what human institution (or human being) measures up?

jussij 11y ago
>> Considering Russia and China are casually annexing territories, its pretty obvious this framework no longer exists > A pretty big overstatement. The only cross-border war between nations I can think of is Russia and Ukraine. Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government. Russia has never like the fact Ukraine decided to leave the Soviet Union. I suspect the reference to China refers to how China is unilaterally taking ownership of the South China Sea using it military strength, with total disregard to international law. It might also be in reference to how China handles Tibet, or how they are trying to kill democracy in Hong Kong, or maybe how they have their eyes on Taiwan where they claim it is rightfully theirs. > The golden age you imagine never existed. It's always been this way. This is the way the UN, and politics in general, works. I wish it were otherwise and we should work to improve it, but it does work I suspect drzaiusapelord disagrees with you when you say it is working and I would say I tend to agree with him. The modern day UN is nothing more than a very expensive bureaucracy that in reality achieves very little. Maybe it has never worked?
- dgudkov 11y ago
  >Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government. This is correct, although it's not so covert. Russia has built in Eastern Ukraine a full-scale army of 40K troops with 600 tanks and thousands of APCs. It sends hundreds of railway cars with military supplies across the border. The army is better equipped and trained than many NATO countries in Europe. At this scale it simply can't be covert, and it's certainly a war.
- vkou 11y ago
  > Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is just running a covert action in Ukraine in an attempt to destabilize it's democratically elected government. Which is different from US involvement in its sphere of influence how, exactly? Presence of boots on the ground?
  - 11y ago

theworstshill 11y ago

The biggest democratic state in history grabbed Hawai and occupied the Philippines. But now in the 21st century, since the world is "civilized", lets change the rules. Awfully close to patent trolling. Anyway UN is doing its work fine. Its somewhat useless, but better than nothing.

munificent 11y ago
> Its somewhat useless, but better than nothing. That's not a glowing review for an organization who's budget was >$12 billion in 2012. [1] To what better use could that money have been put? [1]: http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/budget.shtml http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/budget.shtml http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/pdfs/oppba/Regular%20Budget.pdf http://www.un.org/en/hq/dm/pdfs/oppba/Regular%20Budget.pdf
kesselvon 11y ago
So when did the Philippines become a U.S. state?
- hartpuff 11y ago
  Did he say it became a US state?

afterburner 11y ago

Russia and China are permanent veto members of the Security Council. That the members of the Security Council had far greater freedom of action was always baked into the system, and was required to get buy in from the the most powerful nations, without which the UN would fail (see: League of Nations).

douche 11y ago
The Security Council is nothing more than the principle members of the Allies at the conclusion of World War 2. Communist China didn't replace the Nationalists on the Security Council until 22 years after Chiang Kai-shek was driven off the mainland onto Taiwan. Since Mao and his old guard were doing their damndest to replicate the starvation and political purging of the Soviet Union in the 20s, it probably didn't matter that much...
- afterburner 11y ago
  "The Security Council is nothing more than the principle members of the Allies at the conclusion of World War 2." Ie. the most powerful nations at the time, without which a second League of Nations experiment would be doomed to fail.

dfkf 11y ago

> Autocratic states ultimately can't work with democratic ones. Its unfair to expect one group to 'follow the rules' and another to go off willy-nilly when it serves them. Libya's "no fly" zone, Iraq, Kosovo, nationalistic coup against a democratically elected president.... etc etc etc I don't even what to say when reading texts like this. It's like democracy is the racism of the 21st century. White infallible democrats versus autocratic niggers.