• kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn’t be necessary

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.

      You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Do you know what a UN peacekeeper is?

          They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there’s countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.

          So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren’t there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.

          Don’t get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.

          But peacekeepers aren’t a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there’s peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.

          • kaffiene@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn’t have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn’t have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you’re right there), we’re talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn’t there. Or I didn’t intend, at least. In no way am I trying to minimise Putin’s evil behaviour. The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn’t be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I’m not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.