The UN Security Council Issues A Statement On The 10 Week 'Dispute'
The words 'war', or 'conflict' are not used
This is why the UN Security Council exists as per their mission statement. A good question to ask students of International Relations and Political Science is whether they have failed in their objectives, and why?
Peace and Security
The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.
The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The UN still believes that the ‘dispute’ can be resolved diplomatically. Have they not seen the dead bodies piled up in mass graves, the thousands who are reported as missing who have likely been buried or cremated to hide the evidence of torture and execution?
I believe we were way past the diplomatic stage when the Bucha massacre happened. There is no turning back after that, and the Russians are not repentant. How do you negotiate with mass murderers that are only intent on destruction?
Can the Security Council not see how ridiculous they look to the world? A permanent member of the Security Council started the war, yet we are supposed to believe that they want peace? A Russian interpretation of peace appears to be different to what the rest of the world believes. Interesting how the UN issues all these statements late in the day, and hasn’t even been picked up by the mainstream media and would miss the deadline for the front pages.
The statement appears to be nothing more than an acknowledgement that there is fighting going on in Ukraine by Russia, and that peace needs to be resolved through discussion and diplomacy. Basically, the UN Security Council is useless in maintaining peace then because of the Russian veto. What purpose does the entity have then if they cannot maintain peace, and are unwilling to reprimand members who violate the charter?
Day 73 (7 May)
The UN Security Council makes a statement on the situation and does not use the words ‘war’, or ‘conflict’, but, “expresses deep concern regarding the maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine”. The statement was drafted by Norway and Mexico who seek Guterres to pursue diplomatic channels for a peaceful resolution. For those looking for the statement, below appears to be it! That’s what you get after 10 weeks, after thousands have died, been tortured, and executed from the organisation that is supposed to safeguard the world from war…
In preparation of annexing the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) it has been announced that has its own ambassador to Russia. The DPR leader, Denis Pushylin appointed Olha Makeyeva, a vice-speaker of the DPR parliament, as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Russia.
Curfews continue in Odesa as attacks continue in the targeted city.
The US pledges more aid for Ukraine ($150 million). There will come a point when the citizens will say, ‘How much more?’
Kharkiv has been under attack again, so it is hard to see the Russians wishing to ceasefire. No one will know what the death toll is for this war, even when it is over due to bodies that have been cremated. The tragedy here is that much of this could have been prevented and still could be, yet the UN wishes to employ diplomacy when Russia is merely stringing the world along when they have no interest in negotiations, only a surrender.
The UK has donated more generators to Ukraine due to the Russians destroying infrastructure. These will assist in helping hospitals and to provide power for emergency services.
I don't believe the UN SC believes that diplomacy is a realistic possibility, unless they have very good intelligence that Putin is so up against it that he might finally consider it. But being who they are, they can't very well come out and say, "Go Britain! Go America! Give Ukraine everything it needs to crush this!" Which is what so many of the rest of us feel. It's GeoPoliticalSpeak, and I think must be accepted as such. They aren't going to come out and tell Putin he has to stop it. It's not, er, "helpful".
But I doubt very much that the entity itself is under any illusions about the reality of the situation, and of whom they are dealing with . . . which just highlights why so many feel that the UN is a pointless idea. TC
A strongly argued and substantiated point of view criticising the UN security Council. Putin needs to ceasefire, not Velensky, but the impression I'm getting, is that to stop the demolition of the Ukraine, and for a 'diplomatic' solution, Zelensky will be expected (from the UN Council standpoint)to give into Putin.