The UN has been castrated by the veto powers that Russia and China use consistently making it a completely toothless organisation, now riddled with corruption as exposed with UNWRA in Gaza and Rwanda in the 90's.
It has now become a monolith for feathering the pockets of bureaucrats - nothing more, nothing less.
100%. And to committees that oversee human rights, it appoints chairpersons from countries which have the most egregious history (continuing history I might add!) of the same. It is a joke and needs to be replaced by an international body that genuinely represents all the good guys so that they can actually take measures to collectively deal with the bad guys.
Yeah - the USA should have been a lot sneakier in how they went about dealing with Maduro. Really, he should have been covertly assassinated, and some dupe blamed for it. I dunno about this new woke BS about being open about what they’ve done. It’s making the world wobble.
I greatly appreciate this, your thought provoking post that I have read with concentration and care, thanks Roger.
But my concern is how difficult it is for a huge body of profoundly different cultures, nations and their current (not necessarily long-term) representatives to arrive at agreement on such a wide ranging set of principles "requirements" most of which are subjective according to each beliefs and perspectives. You offer NATO and the USA's Congress as examples but even these individuals with widely separated agendas often fail to reach consensus.
The (perhaps) once United Nations have never been united and have always been unable to arrive at consensus. The UN are just a very expensive talking shop.
The biggest threat is this aging megalomanic with the red nuclear-war button on his desk. Surrounded now by sycophantic generals and a loveless marriage who would stop him...
What has he got to lose by nuking China?
Perversely he might enjoy the infamy. It would see his name writ larger in history than Hitler
You make some very good points Roger, but diplomacy in the modern era is too often a waste of time. None of the evil roosters understand honesty nor do they desire outcomes focused on the good of their people. Had Kissinger taken a tougher US hegemonic line, we might not be where we are today. Bullies do not respect diplomacy. I do agree that consensus among good nations is desirable (for reasons you outlined well), but for that to work the world needs leaders like Meloni, Milei and Netanyahu. Leading the discussions however are limp figures like Macron, Albanese, 2-tier Keir and the new pretender Carney. The be-kind types such as Ardern, Merkel and Carter made this mess. We now require our own bulldog in the fight and that just happens to be a dude who is effective but should have his phone taken off him. Marduro was of course about so much more than just Venezuela and sometimes needs must, as they say.
Boris – thanks, and I think we agree on more than we disagree. I'm not arguing against tough action or for endless diplomacy. Some regimes only understand force. My argument is narrower: that force works better when it's constrained by planning, criteria, and allied consensus. Not because we need permission from the UN, but because deliberation produces better outcomes than impulse. Strength without strategy is how you get Iraq. And Trump isn't just a capable leader who needs his phone taken away. As I've argued in earlier essays (like this one, https://rogerpartridge.substack.com/p/the-suicide-of-american-power), he's systematically dismantling the constitutional guardrails and alliances that made American power effective in the first place.
We most certainly do agree on many/most things (based on your many excellent articles). Your desire for constraint is good. I lack in-depth knowledge of how far Trump has pushed U.S. legal fine-lines and for sure, the last thing we want is an erosion of democratic safeguards. Sadly, he is all we seem to have right now.
The UN has been castrated by the veto powers that Russia and China use consistently making it a completely toothless organisation, now riddled with corruption as exposed with UNWRA in Gaza and Rwanda in the 90's.
It has now become a monolith for feathering the pockets of bureaucrats - nothing more, nothing less.
100%. And to committees that oversee human rights, it appoints chairpersons from countries which have the most egregious history (continuing history I might add!) of the same. It is a joke and needs to be replaced by an international body that genuinely represents all the good guys so that they can actually take measures to collectively deal with the bad guys.
Yeah - the USA should have been a lot sneakier in how they went about dealing with Maduro. Really, he should have been covertly assassinated, and some dupe blamed for it. I dunno about this new woke BS about being open about what they’ve done. It’s making the world wobble.
Sadly, Trump doesn't do deniability.
Yeah, but at least players are now being forced to choose a side. Do you think the battle lines have become a little clearer perhaps?
My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but maybe you have a point.
I greatly appreciate this, your thought provoking post that I have read with concentration and care, thanks Roger.
But my concern is how difficult it is for a huge body of profoundly different cultures, nations and their current (not necessarily long-term) representatives to arrive at agreement on such a wide ranging set of principles "requirements" most of which are subjective according to each beliefs and perspectives. You offer NATO and the USA's Congress as examples but even these individuals with widely separated agendas often fail to reach consensus.
The (perhaps) once United Nations have never been united and have always been unable to arrive at consensus. The UN are just a very expensive talking shop.
The biggest threat is this aging megalomanic with the red nuclear-war button on his desk. Surrounded now by sycophantic generals and a loveless marriage who would stop him...
What has he got to lose by nuking China?
Perversely he might enjoy the infamy. It would see his name writ larger in history than Hitler
You make some very good points Roger, but diplomacy in the modern era is too often a waste of time. None of the evil roosters understand honesty nor do they desire outcomes focused on the good of their people. Had Kissinger taken a tougher US hegemonic line, we might not be where we are today. Bullies do not respect diplomacy. I do agree that consensus among good nations is desirable (for reasons you outlined well), but for that to work the world needs leaders like Meloni, Milei and Netanyahu. Leading the discussions however are limp figures like Macron, Albanese, 2-tier Keir and the new pretender Carney. The be-kind types such as Ardern, Merkel and Carter made this mess. We now require our own bulldog in the fight and that just happens to be a dude who is effective but should have his phone taken off him. Marduro was of course about so much more than just Venezuela and sometimes needs must, as they say.
Boris – thanks, and I think we agree on more than we disagree. I'm not arguing against tough action or for endless diplomacy. Some regimes only understand force. My argument is narrower: that force works better when it's constrained by planning, criteria, and allied consensus. Not because we need permission from the UN, but because deliberation produces better outcomes than impulse. Strength without strategy is how you get Iraq. And Trump isn't just a capable leader who needs his phone taken away. As I've argued in earlier essays (like this one, https://rogerpartridge.substack.com/p/the-suicide-of-american-power), he's systematically dismantling the constitutional guardrails and alliances that made American power effective in the first place.
We most certainly do agree on many/most things (based on your many excellent articles). Your desire for constraint is good. I lack in-depth knowledge of how far Trump has pushed U.S. legal fine-lines and for sure, the last thing we want is an erosion of democratic safeguards. Sadly, he is all we seem to have right now.