Distractions from the War thread

[Kyriakos]

The entire point of a UN (with permanent security council members, which I am against) is that you don't end up with another single alliance deciding stuff. I doubt any of the superpowers want to have a dissolution of the permanent members council, because then they'd have to spend more money bribing enough third world countries (majority) to pass stuff. Also, they want to support their own proxies and will shamelessly stop any UN decision with a veto (that's not something only Russia or China does, remember Israel etc).

Moderator Action: Have changed the thread title back to the original name. leif

 

[Zardnaar]

How many legions does the UN have?

 

[Kyriakos]

Its purpose is to not allow the superpowers to be humiliated, since ultimately they have a veto.
I mean the three powers that actually meaningfully belong there.

 

[Zardnaar]

Its purpose is to not allow the superpowers to be humiliated, since ultimately they have a veto.
I mean the three powers that actually meaningfully belong there.

USA, China, France?

 

[Verbose]

The entire point of a UN (with permanent security council members, which I am against) is that you don't end up with another single alliance deciding stuff. I doubt any of the superpowers want to have a dissolution of the permanent members council, because then they'd have to spend more money bribing enough third world countries (majority) to pass stuff. Also, they want to support their own proxies and will shamelessly stop any UN decision with a veto (that's not something only Russia or China does, remember Israel etc).

It also assumed the superpowers are rational, restrained, and mostly inhabit the same planet as the rest of us. Russia isn't just sidelining itself from superpower status at an accelerating pace, it is also very hard to prevent it from humiliating itself like this.

And there is a precedent for removing a power from a permanent seat in the UNSC.

When Iran overtakes Russia in GDP (imminent), and their nukes come on-line (not far-off), should Iran be considered for permanent UNSC status? Of course not. But the Russian status is increasingly based ONLY on the number of its nukes, and its propensity to try to hold the world hostage to them. There is a clock ticking.

 

[Kyriakos]

It also assumed the superpowers are rational, restrained, and mostly inhabit the same planet as the rest of us. Russia isn't just sidelining itself from superpower status at an accelerating pace, it is also very hard to prevent it from humiliating itself like this.

And there is a precedent for removing a power from a permanent seat in the UNSC.

When Iran overtakes Russia in GDP (imminent), and their nukes come on-line (not far-off), should Iran be considered for permanent UNSC status? Of course not. But the Russian status is increasingly based ONLY on the number of its nukes, and its propensity to try to hold the world hostage to them. There is a clock ticking.

Russia has more land than twice the rest of the european continent. It is an obviously important country and as long as there is no defense against nukes it would continue to be a superpower even on account of that alone.

 

[Verbose]

Russia has more land than twice the rest of the european continent. It is an obviously important country and as long as there is no defense against nukes it would continue to be a superpower even on account of that alone.

And that's a particular cross for Russia to bear. What it takes to keep Russia connected to itself is a major undertaking. The risk is that it just fails to keep that immense landmass together. There are all kinds of alternative costs for Russia to Putin's war on Ukraine.

 

[Kyriakos]

And that's a particular cross for Russia to bear. What it takes to keep Russia connected to itself is a major undertaking. The risk is that it just fails to keep that immense landmass together. There are all kinds of alternative costs for Russia to Putin's war on Ukraine.

It's not like Mongolia will conquer parts of Russia, and I don't see what basis there is for believing China would sacrifice a great permanent defense against attack from its massive northern border, to steal even more lands it can't use.
Which only leaves Japan, and that country (for various reasons) is in no position to do any such thing.

 

[Verbose]

It's not like Mongolia will conquer parts of Russia, and I don't see what basis there is for believing China would sacrifice a great permanent defense against attack from its massive northern border, to steal even more lands it can't use.
Which only leaves Japan, and that country (for various reasons) is in no position to do any such thing.

It's not an issue whether someone else might wants bits – it's a matter of a fundamental weakness due to Russia's sheer size. Things risk just drifting away. Keeping it all together requires active effort and considerable expense already. It always has. It's one of these fundamentals that Russians defending Russian presumed need to be autocratic tend to pick up on – Russia needs to be an autocracy just to keep it all together – QED.

Russian outlying regions are connected by rail and a system of small airfields. A couple of years ago the Russian government tried economizing by discontinuing a number of railway branches, which effectively makes some regions of Russia unreachable – in practical terms not quite part of Russia anymore. And the system of airfields was a major Soviet investment that the Russian republic relies – but this is old infrastructure, and crumbling, in need of re-investment. And if or when the runways become too pitted for landing even rugged small aircraft, then to fix the problem expeditions will need to be assembled, for a drive through the wilderness, 19th c.-style.

But for now Russia is doubling down on liquidating Ukraine, so that's where the spending of what can be spent will head first. This war is not for free for Russia. And certainly has other needs than whatever Putin is trying to achieve in Ukraine.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's similar, to varying degrees, in other massive countries. Even the US has very obvious splits that can lead to new countries given the right circumstances, not to mention China which occupies entire countries that otherwise would be their own entity already.
Then there's Brazil, where the entire economy is in a pocket in the south.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I'm a huge supporter of the UN, for those reasons. That doesn't change that the UN is now completely sidelined in this conflict. There cannot be a negotiated solution anymore.

If the LN had had the same system as the UN, and Japan a veto, it would also never have withdrawn from it in 1933 – like Russia now utilizes the UN as a platform, detracting from the real issues.

The issue here is that Russia has a lot of nukes. Enough nukes to end the world. If you think you know how to set up an UN that can solve the nuclear chicken problem, please go ahead and communicate your proposal.

 

[Verbose]

The issue here is that Russia has a lot of nukes. Enough nukes to end the world. If you think you know how to set up an UN that can solve the nuclear chicken problem, please go ahead and communicate your proposal.

I don't. But the UN is based on the assumption that the biggest holders of nukes are both rational and restrained. And Russia at this point is neither. And so the UN can't work. The obvious display of impotence, and Russia BS-ing everyone else in the UNSC, is in itself a huge problem for the UN system.

The UN isn't JUST a discussion-club. It is also based on a set of principles. Most important here is the inviolability of recognized borders and sovereignty. And Russia is making a mockery of all of it, and the UN can only sit there and take it. It is a not a good look. It is a real problem. If someone in the upper echelons of the UN system wanted to troll the UN, and everyone else, and make it irrelevant – then you could hardly do a better job than the Russian government right now.

Sure, most of the rest in the UNSC will restate the principles (as they do), but Russia will keep trolling them – with or without the tacit consent of China, possibly India, et al. – and that's all the UN will be able to do.

The UN system will only be able to save itself when it manages to clearly state that Russia is a direct threat to all if it – which it is – and even the Chinese, Indians etc., get on board with actively enforcing the principles the UN is based on, in direct contraventions of the Russian disruption of all of it. If they in fact want the UN system? If they don't, then letting Russia continue, in effect tacitly endorsing it, makes perfect sense.

And that doesn't mean all and sundry have to military-up and head into Russia to fight a war. What should happen however is a general condemnation of Russia, and global sanctions.

But that's not going to happen like things stand. Maybe if Russia really starts nuking other countries? Who knows...

 

[Kyriakos]

I think you are overestimating how many countries would be into placing sanctions on Russia. It seems like those that are open to that, already do it - and it is a very small minority (if you care about actual UN, numbers should matter ) of the number of countries in this stupid planet.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you are overestimating how many countries would be into placing sanctions on Russia. It seems like those that are open to that, already do it - and it is a very small minority (if you care about actual UN, numbers should matter ) of the number of countries in this stupid planet.

Numbers don't matter it who's controls the money.

Hint US dollar, Euro, pound and yen.

 

[Kyriakos]

Numbers don't matter it who's controls the money.

Hint US dollar, Euro, pound and yen.

If numbers don't matter, there's no point in trying to make this about the UN being more about the will of people and shared principles.

 

[Zardnaar]

If numbers don't matter, there's no point in trying to make this about the UN being more about the will of people and shared principles.

I was talking about sanctions. London and New York are essentially the finance capitals if the world and there's lots of things they can do to make life hell.

World's not a democracy and a good chunk of it don't get a vote anyway.

In other news we knew about Lyman for over a week. Russia couldn't find any reserves to plug the defense let alone counter attack.

 

[Kyriakos]

I was talking about sanctions. London and New York are essentially the finance capitals if the world and there's lots of things they can do to make life hell.

World's not a democracy and a good chunk of it don't get a vote anyway.

The issue is that if "world's not a democracy" etc, then there isn't any foundation in trying to argue that Russia should be kicked out of the security council because it isn't as ethical as the 'world' requires.
Can't both present the UN as expressing the entire world and only care about a very small subset of the world which has placed sanctions on Russia - not even all of the nato countries have done that.

On a tied note, there are plenty of countries that view some other of the security council members (with veto power) as being destructive and unethical. France still has the francafrique, China occupies vast lands that want to be independent, US is the US with all the coups and invasions it entails and UK... simply has no business being in the security council ^_^

 

[Zardnaar]

The issue is that if "world's not a democracy" etc, then there isn't any foundation in trying to argue that Russia should be kicked out of the security council because it isn't as ethical as the 'world' requires.
Can't both present the UN as expressing the entire world and only care about a very small subset of the world which has placed sanctions on Russia - not even all of the nato countries have done that.

Russia signed up to the principles of the UN ones they're blatantly violating.

Whole sham referendum and nuclear threats thing.

Basically if they get away with it it's open season on any nation without nukes or whose neighbor that's stringer decides to take a bite.

 

[Verbose]

I think you are overestimating how many countries would be into placing sanctions on Russia. It seems like those that are open to that, already do it - and it is a very small minority (if you care about actual UN, numbers should matter ) of the number of countries in this stupid planet.

I'm not overestimating how many countries I think absolutely should sanction Russian, if the principles of the UN charter were really taken seriously at this point.

I am clearly also not overestimating how many will actually sanctions Russia as things stand. We all know that score.

 

[Verbose]

The issue is that if "world's not a democracy" etc, then there isn't any foundation in trying to argue that Russia should be kicked out of the security council because it isn't as ethical as the 'world' requires.

Russia is in flagrant violation of the principles of the UN charter, of which it is a signatory.

If too few of the other members of the UN will not take the UN and the principles it is based on seriously – well the UN has a problem – the UN has a problem with relevance in light of Putin's latest actions – which is what I started out saying.

If the UN as a group of signatory nations will not take what it has signed seriously, but allow Russia to derail things, then who is supposed to take the UN seriously?