Question: Why can't the UN send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine?

[Wicked Blue]

I tried to research this but am unable to find anything, not even a discussion of the possibility.

Is it because of the nuclear threat?

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

1. The Veto Twins

Russia & China on the security council.

Edited to add, during the Korean conflict, The US pushed the police action thru the security council, The USSR voted for it, as did China, but that China is now Taiwan.

[Wicked Blue]

5. Thank you

I hoped the General Assembly could override them, but that was wishful thinking

[Amishman]

17. The General Assembly can do nothing binding

It is especially just a stage for discussion

[CanonRay]

11. My memory, and maybe it's faulty

is that the Russian delegation walked out for some reason, and the Security Council voted yes in their absence. True?

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

13. You could be 100% correct.

As I was a few months old at the time, my recollection may be a touch foggy.


The recent UN action in Lybia was deemed a police action. Then again since few governments actually bother to declare war on another party...

This action in Lybia was humanitarian in nature, to protect civilians. Russia has straight-up invaded Ukraine, without the formal declaration of war, with some really silly reasons putin is using to defend this invasion.

Resolution 1973 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 17 March 2011 in response to the First Libyan Civil War. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom.[1][2]

Ten Security Council members voted in the affirmative (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, and permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Five (Brazil, Germany, and India, and permanent members China and Russia) abstained, with none opposed.[3]

The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973

[former9thward]

14. You are correct.

The USSR was boycotting the SC at the time of the Korean resolution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. The Soviet Union didn't vote

They were boycotting the UN over their refusal to admit China.

[EarlG]

2. Because UN peacekeeping forces require

a UN Security Council resolution to deploy.

Any of the five permanent members of the council can veto a resolution.

Russia is one of the five permanent members.

[Wicked Blue]

4. Thanks, EarlG. Nevertheless it should be brought up and put to a vote

to get it on public record that Russia refuses to allow UN peacekeeping forces.

It's too bad they can't be required to abstain from voting on a matter directly involving them.

[Amishman]

19. Technically Russia is not a security council member at all

The five permanent members are specified by name in the UN Charter - which names the Soviet Union and not the Russian Federation. It was never updated.

It has simply been practice to allow Russia to use it as the Soviet's successor. Nothing was ever debated, voted on, or formalized in any way - other than the UN recognizing the dissolution of the USSR.

Ukraine called this out a few days ago and seems to be an excellent way to punish and marginalize Russia. Ukraine is technically correct - the best kind of correct. Kick Russia off the council on a technicality

[EarlG]

20. This is true

They have held that seat for the last thirty years but technically it belongs to the USSR, not Russia.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. As long as Russia and China are security council members

The UN is useless in this situation.

[Wicked Blue]

6. Thank you

I confess I don't know much about the workings of the UN.

[Hortensis]

7. As said. They also don't keep a standing reserve and have

to build the military basically from scratch each time. I have no idea of their potential but am sure they've never operated on the scale that would be needed.

[Wicked Blue]

8. Enlightening. Thanks. nt

[EndlessWire]

9. No, it's because

it would require a vote from the Security Council.

They have a surge capacity of a brigade level. They have a mandate to deploy within 10 days with a total time of 60 days. They have a military structure with equipment. But they are not meant to fight a war. They do riot control, assist refugees, etc. I did read a pdf about this, but I lost my link. When I find it, I will post it.

I had the impression that their peacekeeping duties do not include advances in the field.

[Wicked Blue]

10. Thank you nt

[Pantagruel]

12. Had the same "brilliant idea" yesterday

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216439144

Still wondering how to protect the nuclear assets?

[former9thward]

15. The UN does not send in peacekeepers to active war situations.

The peacekeepers are used when the two sides have stopped fighting or declared a truce. Then the UN comes in to essentially keep the two sides apart. They do not fight wars.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. Putin likens sanctions to a 'declaration of war,' says invasion pushback risks future of Ukrainian s

According to Putin, a no-fly zone will be a declaration of war on Russia

Link to tweet

The United States, Britain and others have so far ruled out supporting a no-fly zone, stating that it would be likely to severely escalate the conflict.

But Putin went one step further Saturday, saying that any countries enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be considered “participants in a military conflict.” The Russian president claimed that his country would see “any movement in this direction” as an intervention in its military operations in Ukraine that would “pose a threat to our service members.”

“We’ll instantly view them as participants in a military conflict,” Putin said.

[Kaleva]

21. The shooting has to stop first

Peacekeeping forces aren't sent into active war zoned