Replace the UN with something not involving Russia?

[MERIZoC]

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-

Eh, sort of. It was basically just the 5 winners of WWII. So, while one could easily argue that Germany was much more powerful than France, the former is not on the P5, while the latter is.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly on that plan. Yes. Give all the nukes to the Dutch. Good thinking.

[Calimera II]

What a terrible idea.


"Let's isolate Russia, an extremely important nation, because that will work."

[New Hampshire Republic]

"Yes, let's kick them out because I disagree with them!"

[Timchiland]

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.

Indeed, at this rate a lot if not most countries would have to be kicked out.
Plus, forming a brand new organization just to keep Russia out is a complete waste of money and time.

[St Salvador]

Yes then russia can form their own new organization(the Moscow pact sounds nice)and we can spend the next few decades wondering which side is stronger than the other! I love this plan already.

[Mushet]

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.

Nuclear blunts!

[Shofercia]

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?

In 2003, the United States recklessly invaded Iraq; the act led to the violent deaths of over 100,000 people, and contributed to the Rise of ISIS.

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

Anyone who paid any attention, was totally privy to the details, and 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 the United States from having a role in it?

Do you see how idiotic your suggestion sounds?

Were these separatists backed by the Russian government?

It's fairly obvious yes, even shof might admit it.

Really? Those specific separatists were backed by the Russian government? It's rather hilarious how the Western Media manages to provide a narrative where all people in the DonBass against Kiev's Junta are super-duper-pooper tied to the Russian Government, but the insurgents in Syria have numerous categories, including Kurds, FSA, ISIS, and others. I guess when Putin says something, every single anti-Kiev person in the DonBass worships his words, or, you know, it could just be the case of different people rebelling for different reasons. Yeah, that seems a lot more logical than the narrative pathetically spoonfed by warmongering press, the very same organizations that marched Americans into the Iraq Fiasco, that began to end America's Dominance. But hey, maybe Putin secretly brainwashed Bush to do that too? Yeah, Putin and Obama got together and like totally pulled that off!

At this point, the UN has no purpose other than to use the US as it's military.

Like how they sanctioned the Iraq War back in 03 right? Oh wait.

Napki, you must've missed it. Ban-ki Moon personally opened the skies, from which Reagan descended on New York, and blessed Bush for the Iraqi Crusade. It was all over Trump TV, I don't how you missed that.

Until you realise that Russia controls a shittonne of land and a shittonne of nuclear weapons and is actively developing fifth-generation fighter jets alongside the US and China, and speaking of China, there's that card to play as well. Even if the Western World tries to diplomatically isolate Russia (hint: it already is), Russia will just turn to China who is the single biggest non-partisan on the planet and will happily supply them with foreign currency, raw materials and a valued trade partner - and with China, Russia then has access to developing African markets that are linking with Chinas. Yay.

The developed world in Europe and the Americas offers a lot more than what China offers to Russia.

The developed world is currently offering Russia sanctions imposed on it to commemorate the start of Operation Barbarossa, along with hundreds of thousands refugees from the DonBass Region. China's offering Russia an equal partnership. It's really not rocket science to figure out which offer Russia will take.

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.

Ahhh yes, Churchill. Pat Buchanan destroys the Myth of Churchill rather beautifully. It could be the only thing Pat Buchanan did beautifully, but even a broken clock is rights twice a day. Speaking of "enough is enough", tell me, are you ready to volunteer? If so, joins Ukraine's Armed Forces, they desperately need volunteers, but as far as I'm concerned, unless Russia invades Poland for no legitimate reason and none currently exists, I'd rather see my tax dollars go to education than the wet dreams of warmongers.

First, this is so hilariously biased. It's a cold warrior-esque mentality. Russia could easily say the same thing, by saying "The US invaded Iraq, a country that never attacked them, on bullshit charges. We should make an organization without them in it."

Secondly, this is a bad idea. Isolating Russia even more won't make things better.

US intelligence screwed up on WMDs, and many Americans wanted the US to liberate Iraq but didn't think it through. Pushing it as it is, but still a whole different ball game than what Russia's doing.

Isn't it the influence of Russia that's preventing the UN from investigating the crash site to prove it was the separatists who did it? Replacing that with an organization that won't let Russia obstruct justice sounds like an improvement to me.

So now we're conducting foreign policy based on what the people want? Why not just create "Africa, Survivor Nation", and bomb random African countries to see which one survives the longest? And yeah, it was a different ball game. US invaded a country intentionally, causing over a 100,000 deaths, with disastrous effects that still exist today. The plane was destroyed accidentally, so yeah, they're not in the same ballpark.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So now we're conducting foreign policy based on what the people want? Why not just create "Africa, Survivor Nation", and bomb random African countries to see which one survives the longest? And yeah, it was a different ball game. US invaded a country intentionally, causing over a 100,000 deaths, with disastrous effects that still exist today. The plane was destroyed accidentally, so yeah, they're not in the same ballpark.

I could get behind that idea

[Shofercia]

Kick the Russians out? No

End the Veto Role? Yes

You'll basically get the same results without the political controversy.

Because the League of Nations was such a smashing success... /sarcasm

First, this is so hilariously biased. It's a cold warrior-esque mentality. Russia could easily say the same thing, by saying "The US invaded Iraq, a country that never attacked them, on bullshit charges. We should make an organization without them in it."

The thing about the CIS is that the other members are so useless that they make the laziest NATO members look like they pull their own weight in comparison.

Yes, comparing a treaty of amity to a military alliance completely destroys his argument in fiction. In reality, not really. But reality's different than fiction.

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

And if the people vote against what liberals consider to be their tenets? Then what?

We should kick out China too. They're not democratic enough to be recognised in the United Nations. How dare they have a different system of government.

Yes completely true, and your attempt at irony is just pointless western self skepticism considering the stuff that China most likely does to it's citizens.

All hail the League of Nations!

Russia should liberalize, and learn to just get along with and comply (to a certain extent) with the US. Won't happen under Putin, but it's honestly in Russia's best interests to do so.

"We are the BORG. You will comply! It's in your best interest to do so!"

[Shofercia]

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.

In case you haven't noticed, the Chinese are extremely against the sanctions, because China understands one thing: if the Russia beats the US over Ukraine, the World is going to be even more multipolar than it is today, and that benefits China. If US wins, the World might swing towards unipolarity, and that might hurt China. So unless you think that China gives a shit about Ukraine, you probably shouldn't be counting on China helping the US crush Russia into submission.

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?

It's those who want a unipolar World under US Hegemony simply utilizing the MH-17 tragedy to meet their needs.

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-

And the French Military Supremacy got them on the UNSC as well?

[Bashriyya]

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?

It's actually the Ukrainians who shot it down.

[The Alma Mater]

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?

It's actually the Ukrainians who shot it down.

As long as Russia keeps blocking any serious investigation we shall never know that.

[United States Kingdom]

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?

Ever heard of NATO?

[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?

In 2003, the United States recklessly invaded Iraq; the act led to the violent deaths of over 100,000 people, and contributed to the Rise of ISIS.

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

Iraqis, Iranians, it's not like towelheads' lifes do actually matter. Western-European lifes, on the other hand... *nod*

Really? Those specific separatists were backed by the Russian government?

Then again, I didn't see much whining about the Western-backed "Syrian rebels" and their rather reckless use of indiscriminate force (such as artillery bombings) over densely-populated areas... And no, I'm not even touching the Yugoslav Wars thingie with the proverbial ten-foot pole. Hey, how about we discussed the lovely Contras, or French behaviour during the Algerian Independence War?

[The New Greek Republic]

Then it would just be "Mostly United Nations".

Motto: "We're trying, but you know, those goddamn Russians."

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

Because that makes literally no sense and ignores the entire point of having a body like the UN.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

It's actually the Ukrainians who shot it down.

Given that a pro-Russian insurgent group tweeted a picture of the lovely Buk missile launchers they stole from a Ukrainian Army base they captured, then tweeted about shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft for a while, then tweeted a picture of a an aircraft crashing in the distance "lol, shot down another An-26, piss off Kiev scum" and hurriedly deleted it when it transpired what they had actually engaged was MH17...

That seems substantially unlikely.
They may have been Ukrainian nationals, but they were fighting for the pro-Russian side. They were not pro-Kiev militias, nor were they Ukrainian military personnel.

[Big Brain City]

We can reform the UN so that Russia doesn't hold as much power as it does. It can veto any resolutions in the Security Council, and the only reason the UN fought the Korean War was because neither the Soviet Union, to which the Russian Federation is successor, nor the PRC were voting on that council, thus leaving a pro-capitalist bloc to authorize military action against North Korea under the flag of the United Nations.
Of course, if we want to keep any country from vetoing stuff involving international security because it's on the Council, we need to keep them all from having that veto.
The United Nations was founded to prevent world wars better than the League of Nations did. Sometimes talking down a nationalist politician is better than giving him the finger. We need to talk Putin out of making noise of that Narva nonsense, or whatever the bloody hell he's rumored to be plotting about now.

[Imperializt Russia]

We can reform the UN so that Russia doesn't hold as much power as it does. It can veto any resolutions in the Security Council, and the only reason the UN fought the Korean War was because neither the Soviet Union, to which the Russian Federation is successor, nor the PRC were voting on that council, thus leaving a pro-capitalist bloc to authorize military action against North Korea under the flag of the United Nations.
Of course, if we want to keep any country from vetoing stuff involving international security because it's on the Council, we need to keep them all from having that veto.
The United Nations was founded to prevent world wars better than the League of Nations did. Sometimes talking down a nationalist politician is better than giving him the finger. We need to talk Putin out of making noise of that Narva nonsense, or whatever the bloody hell he's rumored to be plotting about now.

I think in that aspect, it has performed remarkably.

The permanent vetos are given to Britain, France, the US, China and Russia. Now, what do those five nations have in common that make you wish they did have a veto?

[Big Brain City]

We can reform the UN so that Russia doesn't hold as much power as it does. It can veto any resolutions in the Security Council, and the only reason the UN fought the Korean War was because neither the Soviet Union, to which the Russian Federation is successor, nor the PRC were voting on that council, thus leaving a pro-capitalist bloc to authorize military action against North Korea under the flag of the United Nations.
Of course, if we want to keep any country from vetoing stuff involving international security because it's on the Council, we need to keep them all from having that veto.
The United Nations was founded to prevent world wars better than the League of Nations did. Sometimes talking down a nationalist politician is better than giving him the finger. We need to talk Putin out of making noise of that Narva nonsense, or whatever the bloody hell he's rumored to be plotting about now.

I think in that aspect, it has performed remarkably.

The permanent vetos are given to Britain, France, the US, China and Russia. Now, what do those five nations have in common that make you wish they did have a veto?

Well, they won World War II together.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think in that aspect, it has performed remarkably.

The permanent vetos are given to Britain, France, the US, China and Russia. Now, what do those five nations have in common that make you wish they did have a veto?

Well, they won World War II together.

They're the five original members of the Nuclear Club. All five have strategic nuclear capability.

[Big Brain City]

Well, they won World War II together.

They're the five original members of the Nuclear Club. All five have strategic nuclear capability.

Oh...I wasn't thinking about it that way, but it makes sense. They have the power to enforce their vetos by any means neccessary.

[Imperializt Russia]

They're the five original members of the Nuclear Club. All five have strategic nuclear capability.

Oh...I wasn't thinking about it that way, but it makes sense. They have the power to enforce their vetos by any means neccessary.

They have vetoes so the Security Council can't shove something past a nuclear-armed state that it might be willing to escalate to nuclear exchange over.

[Shilya]

Oh...I wasn't thinking about it that way, but it makes sense. They have the power to enforce their vetos by any means neccessary.

They have vetoes so the Security Council can't shove something past a nuclear-armed state that it might be willing to escalate to nuclear exchange over.

Realistically, the UNSC needs to be reformed anyways. The nuclear club has grown, but its role arguably declined. Nations simply go ahead without asking the SC, because everyone knows how it'll go there anyways, and bet on random nations being flattened somewhere not being worth a nuclear war for anyone.