It will sound like I'm arguing against myself, but hear me out: when it comes to relations between these two countries, the UN is a relatively feckless PR platf

It will sound like I'm arguing against myself, but hear me out: when it comes to relations between these two countries, the UN is a relatively feckless PR platform at best, and not even a forum, despite what numerous aides seem to hopelessly believe (and bless their eager little hearts for it). You're right that their peacekeeping forces are a rounding error for either nation. The original point to which I was replying is that they don't understand why people call on a mere forum to solve their problems. Some regions repeatedly look to UN peacekeepers to solve their problems and so the forum designation is insufficient to describe it. But the UN is oddly violent for a mere forum, some would say immorally so. War crimes are as old as war, but war is war. The UN is this bizarrely unaccountable keeper of peace and rape. And many people really don't understand the UN's modest peacekeeping capabilities and the collateral damage they often bring to a conflict, and often wrongly believe the UN is a silver bullet when it's far from it. I believe that's why people repeatedly think the UN is a solution to problems it mostly isn't. That's the scope of what I was trying to address. My added detail about its structural and fundamental flaw of having no real mechanism for recourse when its troops commit war crimes was just to properly frame what an inherently deficient entity it really is.