Replace the UN with something not involving Russia?

[Pandeeria]

I think Russia's as backwards as the next guy, but kicking them out of the UN seems a bit extreme.

They're homophobic, war-mongering jerks, but they're our homophobic war-mongering jerks.

The UN at this point really does have the financial clout to massively pressure nations into reforming.

I think the UN needs to be a powerful organization to be taken seriously and be effective, but it doesn't have to be (and could be argued that it would even be undesirable) militaristically powerful. Countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Italy, and more make up a massive chunk of the world's economy, and it's more fortunate consumer base. If the entire UN agreed to all embargo certain countries, and place restrictions of trade and whatnot, it would severely damage countries that are seen as unfavorable to the UN. I'm also certain that the US could simply ask Japan, South Korea, and maybe even the Philippines to follow the UN's embargo list, and they'd probably do it.

The issue is that Russia is on the security council. All we need to do is have them booted and replaced with a more proper power (my personal candidate is Germany), and change the rules so perhaps a majority of the council (three of the five) needs to veto an action for it to actually be vetoed.

[New Grestin]

I think Russia's as backwards as the next guy, but kicking them out of the UN seems a bit extreme.

They're homophobic, war-mongering jerks, but they're our homophobic war-mongering jerks.

The UN at this point really does have the financial clout to massively pressure nations into reforming.

I think the UN needs to be a powerful organization to be taken seriously and be effective, but it doesn't have to be (and could be argued that it would even be undesirable) militaristically powerful. Countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Italy, and more make up a massive chunk of the world's economy, and it's more fortunate consumer base. If the entire UN agreed to all embargo certain countries, and place restrictions of trade and whatnot, it would severely damage countries that are seen as unfavorable to the UN. I'm also certain that the US could simply ask Japan, South Korea, and maybe even the Philippines to follow the UN's embargo list, and they'd probably do it.

The issue is that Russia is on the security council. All we need to do is have them booted and replaced with a more proper power (my personal candidate is Germany), and change the rules so perhaps a majority of the council (three of the five) needs to veto an action for it to actually be vetoed.

The problem with removing them from the Council is the fact that I think we all know that Russia would "take it's toys and go home".

Their entire government has done little more than spit in the face of international law since the Crimea business started and, odds are, it would continue to do so.

That said, I seriously doubt the UN would be any worse for them leaving. At least we could hand the position over to Germany. They're controllable, at least.

[United facist States of America]

There is already. It's called NATO, and it is pissing the Russians off extensively.

Besides, that's just asking for a war with Russia. At least with the UN, you get to have forced diplomacy before you attempt to violently kill each other. Without that balance, I'm pretty sure war would just break out.

Reminds me of Churchill's statement about choosing between war and shame. At what point do we decide that enough is enough?

As for NATO, it doesn't have Sweden. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it isn't solidarity with Russia. I doubt a country so progressive on gay rights would want solidarity with a country that is synonymous with beating gays to within an inch of their lives.

Sweden isn't in NATO because it's been neutral for 2 centuries.

[United facist States of America]

The UN should be based on the principles of Liberal Democracy, therefor Russia should have no representation until they purge themselves of their idiocy.

So North Korea with it's dictatorship and concentration camps can stay but Russia can't?

[Pandeeria]

The UN should be based on the principles of Liberal Democracy, therefor Russia should have no representation until they purge themselves of their idiocy.

So North Korea with it's dictatorship and concentration camps can stay but Russia can't?

When the hell did anyone make the case that North Korea should stay in the UN?

[Pandeeria]

The UN at this point really does have the financial clout to massively pressure nations into reforming.

I think the UN needs to be a powerful organization to be taken seriously and be effective, but it doesn't have to be (and could be argued that it would even be undesirable) militaristically powerful. Countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Italy, and more make up a massive chunk of the world's economy, and it's more fortunate consumer base. If the entire UN agreed to all embargo certain countries, and place restrictions of trade and whatnot, it would severely damage countries that are seen as unfavorable to the UN. I'm also certain that the US could simply ask Japan, South Korea, and maybe even the Philippines to follow the UN's embargo list, and they'd probably do it.

The issue is that Russia is on the security council. All we need to do is have them booted and replaced with a more proper power (my personal candidate is Germany), and change the rules so perhaps a majority of the council (three of the five) needs to veto an action for it to actually be vetoed.

The problem with removing them from the Council is the fact that I think we all know that Russia would "take it's toys and go home".

Their entire government has done little more than spit in the face of international law since the Crimea business started and, odds are, it would continue to do so.

That said, I seriously doubt the UN would be any worse for them leaving. At least we could hand the position over to Germany. They're controllable, at least.

If we can hurt Russia on a massive scale economically with mass embargos, I'm sue they would be a bit more willing to listen to the West. If not, then their reduced economic power will make their military shrink even further.

Hell, we could even cut a deal with the Chinese. As long as China gradually places greater and greater trade restrictions until Russia until even they're effectively embargoing Russia, we'll allow the Chinese government to remain in peace. Besides, it's not like the US would embargo China anyways, might as well make the best of it and hurt Russia even further.

[New Grestin]

The problem with removing them from the Council is the fact that I think we all know that Russia would "take it's toys and go home".

Their entire government has done little more than spit in the face of international law since the Crimea business started and, odds are, it would continue to do so.

That said, I seriously doubt the UN would be any worse for them leaving. At least we could hand the position over to Germany. They're controllable, at least.

If we can hurt Russia on a massive scale economically with mass embargos, I'm sue they would be a bit more willing to listen to the West. If not, then their reduced economic power will make their military shrink even further.

Hell, we could even cut a deal with the Chinese. As long as China gradually places greater and greater trade restrictions until Russia until even they're effectively embargoing Russia, we'll allow the Chinese government to remain in peace. Besides, it's not like the US would embargo China anyways, might as well make the best of it and hurt Russia even further.

I suppose that's a decent point. I'm still not sure it would convince Putin to abandon his attempts at doing...whatever the fuck he's doing...

[Pandeeria]

If we can hurt Russia on a massive scale economically with mass embargos, I'm sue they would be a bit more willing to listen to the West. If not, then their reduced economic power will make their military shrink even further.

Hell, we could even cut a deal with the Chinese. As long as China gradually places greater and greater trade restrictions until Russia until even they're effectively embargoing Russia, we'll allow the Chinese government to remain in peace. Besides, it's not like the US would embargo China anyways, might as well make the best of it and hurt Russia even further.

I suppose that's a decent point. I'm still not sure it would convince Putin to abandon his attempts at doing...whatever the fuck he's doing...

I feel confident that if even the Chinese eventually refused trade with Russia, then Russia would have to submit. They have tons of raw resources and a relatively wealthy population in comparison to the rest of the world, but without anyone to sell these raw resources to or have to no one process them, and with a wealthy populace that would get pissed off at the Russian government (since due to their government's failure to avoid mass embargo) Russia would adapt.

[Lordieth]

The UN doesn't need replacing. It needs to get rid of this idiotic notion that it needs unilateral support from all nations. An overwhelming majority would suffice.

[Psichikou]

Because Russia has a massive geopolitical role in the region, controls about an eighth of the land surface of the earth, and has the 6th largest GDP per capita and the 15th largest nominal GDP (IMF). The UN is supposed to be a forum for the peaceful resolution of conflict, not an alliance. If you're looking for an organization to combat the influence of Russia or to defend against Russia, it's called NATO.

In short, that would be absurd.

No it doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

Yeah, thanks for that. Second person. My point still stands.

[Shilya]

The point of the UN is that there's one body that every country can join, regardless of behaviour, politics and general dickishness. So you can at least talk to them in one place. So there's one forum where everyone's actually there and you have a shot, no matter how small, at solving issues without resorting to missiles.

If you kick out even one country, you may as well shut the whole thing down. There's enough exclusive international clubs. There's only one UN. If you appreciate a place where dissenting voices can be heared, and where douches actually have to listen to the world, keep it.

[Rio Cana]

I think Russia's as backwards as the next guy, but kicking them out of the UN seems a bit extreme.

They're homophobic, war-mongering jerks, but they're our homophobic war-mongering jerks.

The UN at this point really does have the financial clout to massively pressure nations into reforming.

I think the UN needs to be a powerful organization to be taken seriously and be effective, but it doesn't have to be (and could be argued that it would even be undesirable) militaristically powerful. Countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Italy, and more make up a massive chunk of the world's economy, and it's more fortunate consumer base. If the entire UN agreed to all embargo certain countries, and place restrictions of trade and whatnot, it would severely damage countries that are seen as unfavorable to the UN. I'm also certain that the US could simply ask Japan, South Korea, and maybe even the Philippines to follow the UN's embargo list, and they'd probably do it.

The issue is that Russia is on the security council. All we need to do is have them booted and replaced with a more proper power (my personal candidate is Germany), and change the rules so perhaps a majority of the council (three of the five) needs to veto an action for it to actually be vetoed.

This would just fracture the UN and create rival world organizations. For example, the OAS (Organization of American States) is generally a US controlled organization. That is why Cuba was not allowed to return to the OAS even though most of the other nations in the Americas wanted Cuba back in the OAS. So to counter this US influence in the OAS, the nations of the Americas created the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) . An organization without the US and Canada. Should point out that CELAC in January of 2015 endorsed an Austrian proposal to ban nuclear weapons. Something which the so called nations that have them rather not hear about.

Story - http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/33-l ... an-treaty/

[Angleter]

No Russias Club.

"But you let in Belorussia!"

"We're allowed one. It says no Russias."

[Risottia]

A year ago, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine shot down a civilian airplane, killing hundreds of people.

And yet, today, Russia still has a role in the UN.

I'm not privy to the details, other than that the UN supposedly doesn't have the authority to just kick a country out just like that. If that's the case, why not just start over, and create an organization for the express purpose of keeping Russia from having a role in it?

Some years ago, a US warship, crewed by regular US sailors and commanded by a regular US officer, operating illegally in Iranian territorial waters, shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing the 300ish people on board. The officer was later awarded a medal for his service.

And yet, today, the US still have a role in the UN.

I see double standards.

[Padnak]

I seem to recall Russia's place on the security country has something to do with its massive nuclear arms stockpile and military supremacy over almost all of Europe...

[Risottia]

I seem to recall Russia's place on the security country has something to do with its massive nuclear arms stockpile and military supremacy over almost all of Europe...

Wrong. It has to do with the Soviet Union winning WW2. The UN and the SC predate the massive nuclear stockpile of anyone.

[New Werpland]

So North Korea with it's dictatorship and concentration camps can stay but Russia can't?

When the hell did anyone make the case that North Korea should stay in the UN?

I certainly didn't.

[Aelex]

The UN at this point really does have the financial clout to massively pressure nations into reforming.

I think the UN needs to be a powerful organization to be taken seriously and be effective, but it doesn't have to be (and could be argued that it would even be undesirable) militaristically powerful. Countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Italy, and more make up a massive chunk of the world's economy, and it's more fortunate consumer base. If the entire UN agreed to all embargo certain countries, and place restrictions of trade and whatnot, it would severely damage countries that are seen as unfavorable to the UN. I'm also certain that the US could simply ask Japan, South Korea, and maybe even the Philippines to follow the UN's embargo list, and they'd probably do it.

Except it would likely be directed by the U.S thing which none of the two European great power, France and Germany, nor many of the other like Spain or Italy and many other third-world country would accept because of obvious desires to conserve their independance and prerogative as well as a disdain for Atlantism which had been growing stronger and stronger as the U.S.A diplomaty had became stupider and stupider.

[Hollorous]

The problem with removing them from the Council is the fact that I think we all know that Russia would "take it's toys and go home".

Their entire government has done little more than spit in the face of international law since the Crimea business started and, odds are, it would continue to do so.

That said, I seriously doubt the UN would be any worse for them leaving. At least we could hand the position over to Germany. They're controllable, at least.

If we can hurt Russia on a massive scale economically with mass embargos, I'm sue they would be a bit more willing to listen to the West. If not, then their reduced economic power will make their military shrink even further.

Hell, we could even cut a deal with the Chinese. As long as China gradually places greater and greater trade restrictions until Russia until even they're effectively embargoing Russia, we'll allow the Chinese government to remain in peace. Besides, it's not like the US would embargo China anyways, might as well make the best of it and hurt Russia even further.

So basically we should tell the Chinese to do what we want, even if it's detrimental to their interests, or we won't "allow them to remain in peace" anymore?

Remind me why I should be rooting for the United States and its allies in this scenario again? Did the Terran Empire become the model for diplomacy while I was taking my afternoon nap?

[Hollorous]

A year ago, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine shot down a civilian airplane, killing hundreds of people.

And yet, today, Russia still has a role in the UN.

I'm not privy to the details, other than that the UN supposedly doesn't have the authority to just kick a country out just like that. If that's the case, why not just start over, and create an organization for the express purpose of keeping Russia from having a role in it?

Some years ago, a US warship, crewed by regular US sailors and commanded by a regular US officer, operating illegally in Iranian territorial waters, shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing the 300ish people on board. The officer was later awarded a medal for his service.

And yet, today, the US still have a role in the UN.

I see double standards.

It seems that when the United States screws up or starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people (Iraq), we're supposed to focus on the "good intentions".

When Russia does it, usually at a far lesser humanitarian cost (not that it's a justification, mind you), then they're a threat to world peace.

Given this situation, all countries should just give all their nukes to the Dutch and see how it turns out.

[Padnak]

I seem to recall Russia's place on the security country has something to do with its massive nuclear arms stockpile and military supremacy over almost all of Europe...

Wrong. It has to do with the Soviet Union winning WW2. The UN and the SC predate the massive nuclear stockpile of anyone.

Nuclear stockpile or no nuclear stockpile, Russian/Soviet military supremacy is what got them on the security council-

[Hollorous]

Wrong. It has to do with the Soviet Union winning WW2. The UN and the SC predate the massive nuclear stockpile of anyone.

Nuclear stockpile or no nuclear stockpile, Russian/Soviet military supremacy is what got them on the security council-

Right, because Soviet military supremacy is what won them WWII.

[Chestaan]

See, that would defeat the whole purpose of the organization.

This. Also the idea of the UN without any counterweight to the US is a horrible idea.

[Glorious KASSRD]

If we are to kick out every nation that's killed civilians, there will be almost nothing left of the UN. Besides, the whole idea of the UN is for ALL nations to meet and cooperate, not to serve the US.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A new UN? A new one? My god, that would be mental. Absolutely insane. It would mean redrafting and a new vote on ever. singe. UN treaty. since her inception. The Treaty of Rome, which gave birth to the International Court in The Hague (which provides legal opportunities for Russia and her adversaries), the UNESCO treaty of 1972, protecting artefacts and national heritage from illegal trade and destruction. The Declaration of Rights for Men and Citizens, the UN treaty of the Seas (which the US still has to ratify)... There are countless treaties which are part of being a UN member. Throwing Russia out of the UN because it misbehaved is like throwing a citizen out of the legal system (but not the country) for committing a crime. That's insanity. The UN does need reform, to highlight that no one nation has more legal power than any other. The SC should be signed off or given a new voting mechanism, something like that. But a new UN is out of the question.