>The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless. Useless in a practical sense, in this particular case, yes. It's not at all surprisin

>The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless. Useless in a practical sense, in this particular case, yes. It's not at all surprising. Specifically the problem is due to simultaneous issues (a) only the Security Council can commit armed forces to enforce resolutions (b) Security Council resolutions need concurrence of its permanent members (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia), i.e. this what is often referred to as a veto (c) one of the permanent members is violating the charter in a fundamental manner, and certainly will not vote to enforce the charter on itself. Should there no longer be permanent members of the Security Council? Perhaps. It is likely to change? Nope.