"Ukraine" or "The Ukraine"?

Violation of the UN Charter.

How will cutting one of the world's nuclear powers out of the global security conversation improve global security and ease tensions? It's exactly that kind of disjointed, occult approach to diplomacy that let regional tensions to escalate into global wars in 1914 and 1939.

UNSC membership isn't a lollipop we give as a reward to good little boys and girls. It's one of the last true venues of realpolitik among the great powers, and probably the most useful thing the UNSC does. Kicking Russia out would have a disastrously isolationist effect on them.
 
Most Anglesey inhabitants spoke very good English by the time we were there some 25 years ago: television/movies and the influx of national brands etc had seen to that. Personally, I've always found the North Wales accent (when speaking English) to be guttural and rather ugly, in comparison to the West Wales accent which is lyrical, soft and lilting (although I may be biased a little!). And the only real Welsh I speak is the words to "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (the Welsh national anthem), which I belt out with the best of them at Welsh rugby matches (sometimes prompting some bemusement if it's England vs Wales at Twickenham and I'm with some people who don't realise I have Welsh heritage.....).

Long ago, greatly-enjoyed holidays in North Wales prompted me to buy the book "Teach Yourself Welsh" and attempt to learn the language. To my shame, I managed to get little further than conjugating the present indicative of the verb "to be"...
 
How will cutting one of the world's nuclear powers out of the global security conversation improve global security and ease tensions? It's exactly that kind of disjointed, occult approach to diplomacy that let regional tensions to escalate into global wars in 1914 and 1939.

UNSC membership isn't a lollipop we give as a reward to good little boys and girls. It's one of the last true venues of realpolitik among the great powers, and probably the most useful thing the UNSC does. Kicking Russia out would have a disastrously isolationist effect on them.

Not saying evict them from the UN, just the SC.

I can't think of anything else that can be done and which will not make matters worse. I am no fan of appeasement unless it is saying "nice doggie" while looking for a rock, but if we get into a nuclear war, nobody wins, and I can't see military intervention going anywhere else.
 
Not saying evict them from the UN, just the SC.

I can't think of anything else that can be done and which will not make matters worse. I am no fan of appeasement unless it is saying "nice doggie" while looking for a rock, but if we get into a nuclear war, nobody wins, and I can't see military intervention going anywhere else.

Oh, there are lots of nasty economic measures that can be taken to punish PUtin and Russia...and I suspect they will be taken.
 
Not saying evict them from the UN, just the SC.

I can't think of anything else that can be done and which will not make matters worse. I am no fan of appeasement unless it is saying "nice doggie" while looking for a rock, but if we get into a nuclear war, nobody wins, and I can't see military intervention going anywhere else.

For the Nuclear Powers, the SC is the UN. Booting Russia is probably the only thing short of crippling sanctions or open war that is virtually guaranteed to make things worse. It's not a question of appeasement, it's a question of keeping your enemies closer. A distant, isolated Russia is in nobody's best interest.

Again, the UNSC isn't a carrot, or a stick. It's a forum where the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet can argue global policy without tumbling into global war. Now more than ever, that channel needs to be kept open.
 
The veto is the main value of the council. Get rid of that and you might as well not have the council at all. For sure expanding the permanent members won't mean much without it.

I suppose if it's the only way to keep them round the table ... still bugs me though.

Why would you want to expand the permanent membership anyway?

If nothing else, it might be an idea to reflect the global balance of power a bit more accurately. For one thing I suspect Germany (particularly with Merkel's quiet diplomacy) probably has much more influence on European affairs than Britain and France combined nowadays.
 
Last edited:
I suppose if it's the only way to keep them round the table ... still bugs me though.
The problem isn't how to keep them around the table without the veto. The problem is that without the veto there is no table.

Twice in the 20th century, the world was plunged into terrible wars, because the great powers of the time had no common forum in which to meet, argue policy, and reject initiatives that they found to be too destabilizing or threatening to their interests.

Hard on the heels of those horrors, several of the powers armed themselves with nuclear weapons. More than ever, such a forum was needed at that point. It's still needed today, for all the same reasons.

A veto seat on the UNSC isn't a prize to be won, or a reward handed out for good behavior. It's a geopolitical pressure-release valve, installed to prevent exactly the kind of misunderstandings that in the past led to global war, and today would lead to global thermonuclear war.

If nothing else, it might be an idea to reflect the global balance of power a bit more accurately. For one thing I suspect Germany (particularly with Merkel's quiet diplomacy) probably has much more influence on European affairs than Britain and France combined nowadays.

India and Pakistan, both armed with nuclear weapons and exposed in relative hotspots, are probably more appropriate candidates for voting membership than Germany, which lacks a nuclear arsenal and is anyway already sheltered under the twin umbrellas of NATO and the European Union.

It's not about who has the most regional influence. It's about who can contribute to the onset of a nuclear war.
 
When the Pakistanis arrive on the UNSC is about time to move to the planet Mars.
 

Back
Top Bottom