The Danger of Russia Becoming President of the U.N. Security Council

[onthedarkside]

 

 

Can you imagine such blood thirsty despots as: Adolf Hitler; Saddam Hussein; or Pol Pot presiding over the U.N. Security Council, charged with preserving global peace and harmony?

 

It may read like one, but this is no April Fool’s prank—next month, Russia—and by extension, Vladimir Putin—will assume the Presidency of the U.N. Security Council.

 

Known burglars are not given banks to run, nor are convicted sex offenders given charge of daycare centers, in the same vein, Putin should not be allowed to make a mockery of international diplomacy by becoming the face of global peace as he escalates his unjust invasion of Ukraine with new attacks daily.

 

https://time.com/6262698/danger-russia-president-u-n-security-council/

 

Read more no paywall

 

[Purdey]

The UN is largely impotent and its record of preventing war is really zero. It boasts about its peacekeeping but those efforts only happened after war had started. They come in at the end, not before the beginning.

The last time Russia had the presidency, nothing happened and I doubt it will this time also.

[Dirk Z]

If it is that irrelevant who becomes president of the Security Council, and indeed if the world lets a war criminal take the position, the whole Council might as well be dissolved. Whose security will it protect?

[KhunLA]

"Can you imagine such blood thirsty despots as: Adolf Hitler; Saddam Hussein; or Pol Pot presiding over the U.N. Security Council, charged with preserving global peace and harmony?"

 

Are people really this ignorant.   The 5 permanent members of the UNSC are some of the top arms dealers of the world.   UK slipping a bit ????

 

Nothing but a terrorist organization as far as I'm concerned ... IMHO

IMHO

IMHO

IMHO

Want stop stop wars, the killing of innocents, stop making and selling the means to commit mass murder on a world wide scale.

 

Who holds the gavel is a bit irrelevant. 

 

2022 - wiki:

Edited March 15, 2023 by KhunLA

[Geir Rasch]

If any permanent member of that Council are part of a conflict the security Council is of no use. I dont see the need for that Council

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Dirk Z said:

If it is that irrelevant who becomes president of the Security Council, and indeed if the world lets a war criminal take the position, the whole Council might as well be dissolved. Whose security will it protect?

IMO the UN ceased to be an effective peacekeeping force many years ago, and has been reduced to wringing it's hands and begging warring nations to play nicely.

Far as I'm concerned they can keep the bits that actually work ( like the agencies that deal with refugees and heritage etc ) and shut the rest down.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Geir Rasch said:

If any permanent member of that Council are part of a conflict the security Council is of no use. I dont see the need for that Council

I'd like to see them lose the veto, which allows a certain country to cover for a different country that is in violation of many UN resolutions.

[Stargeezr]

There is a big difference from being an arms exporter country, from a country that has invaded a neighboring

country. Just for the poster who thinks differently.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Stargeezr said:

There is a big difference from being an arms exporter country, from a country that has invaded a neighboring

country. Just for the poster who thinks differently.

There are a few countries that are currently involved in fighting in neighbouring countries probably using weapons from countries like France, UK and America. Are they in the wrong too, or is it just Russia that is bad?

Enabling killing is not a good thing for any country IMO.

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There are a few countries that are currently involved in fighting in neighbouring countries probably using weapons from countries like France, UK and America. Are they in the wrong too, or is it just Russia that is bad?

Enabling killing is not a good thing for any country IMO.

You are aware that Russia is the world’s second-largest arms exporter right?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There are a few countries that are currently involved in fighting in neighbouring countries probably using weapons from countries like France, UK and America. Are they in the wrong too, or is it just Russia that is bad?

Enabling killing is not a good thing for any country IMO.

Tell that to Putin and Russia about the Ukrainian WAR then.