The UN is cooking something up

[EndlessWire]

I watched the UN briefings this morning. Mexico and France came out and gave speeches, then took questions.

This is what I heard, but according to interruptions in the flow of the broadcast (my rig). So, I am saying that perhaps I didn't get all of the intent here, but this is what I think happened:

That, because, as you know, they can't go to the Security Council and get anything passed because of veto, they are taking a resolution to the General Assembly, which only requires a two thirds vote to pass. And, this resolution is regarding humanitarian concerns of all the (millions of) refugees caused by the Russian aggression in Ukraine. The whole situation sucks because there will be a cascade effect on food security which adversely affects struggling countries through poverty and the effects of the Covid pandemic.

This seems to be a step forward in terms of action by the UN. They can't simply stand there and say, Oh, we are going to kick Russian ass now, because we are finally fed up...what they can do is help at the borders where civilians are threatened. But, they did say that they are going to do something TODAY, and that was why they were announcing this resolution vote, because they need all the nations in on it for the two thirds vote. I think that was what was meant; something happening today.

They emphasized that the situation on the ground is very fluid and changing by the hour. I think they feel that things have to happen rapidly. Also, that air strike on the military base, IMO, may be motivational as the war is moving toward the borders now.

As you know, all the fighting has been on the Russian border, the Belarus border, and down at the Azov Sea shore areas. Now, the war is moving toward the NATO border areas, and the countries along those borders, some NATO, some not, are at risk. A lot of bombing has occurred very close to borders in other areas. How close will they bomb border towns on the Ukraine side in order to flatten them, and what will happen to refugees sheltering there along those new borders? I just don't know.

Will NATO accept damage to NATO land, as opposed to actual warfare and occupation, if a bomb is errant and inflicts damage on the wrong side of the border? There was that drone that flew over Romania, Hungary and landed in Croatia, who has been a member of NATO since 2009. Boy, was Croatia pissed that NATO had no reaction to that.

I don't know if we can watch the GA meeting for this, but I would very much like to watch it.

Ukraine,

[SheltieLover]

1. K&R!

[AntiFascist]

2. This why the bombing of Yavoriv is so relevant...

it sounds like it greatly disrupted humanitarian efforts.

[Donkees]

3. France & Mexico on Ukraine's humanitarian situation -Security Council Media Stakeout (14 March 2022)

Joint stakeout by Nicolas de Rivière, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, and Juan Ramón de la Fuente, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations, on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine.

[PoliticAverse]

4. The UN has a youtube page, and streams their General Assembly and Security Council mettings live...

UN youtube page..
https://www.youtube.com/c/unitednations

Their current live stream:

[flying_wahini]

5. Thanks for the link!

I will be watching.

[Evolve Dammit]

6. Important info. Thank you!

[Amishman]

7. The general assembly can do nothing other than words

It has no actual power. Nothing from the general assembly is binding.

The security council is the only part that means much. I'm much more interested in Ukraine's idea of stripping Russia of their security council spot as it is in the UN charter as being to the Soviet Union and was never updated

[Lonestarblue]

8. If there's a way to kick Russia off the Security Council, it should be done.

Russia has never been a good influence on the world.

[BlueIdaho]

9. Agreed.

If including Russia increases the chances of peace - fine. If not - they should lose their standing there. At this point I’m fine with the world vs Russia.

[Amishman]

11. I can see it being possible by the Soviet Union / Russian Federation technicality

The permanent seat and veto are for the Soviet Union and not the Russian Federation per the UN charter.

The nice thing is that it is a technicality that sets no useable precedent. Makes players like China more receptive

[former9thward]

16. If Russia went then so would China.

China is not the same country as it was per the UN Charter.

[PoliticAverse]

18. There was an actual U.N. General Assembly resolution that effectively replaced

the Republic of China with the Peoples Republic of China...

General Assembly Resolution 2758
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

[former9thward]

19. GA Resolutions are not binding on the Security Council.

Or on any of the member states. The PRC is not the same geographically than the ROC which held the seat.

[PoliticAverse]

24. The U.N. considered resolution 2758 to be binding on the U.N. itself as the PROC

representatives replaced the ROC representatives as the U.N. recognized representatives of China.

[former9thward]

26. I know what the Security Council did.

They were not required to by the UN Charter. It remains the two situations are the same. Which is why Russia will hold the seat the Soviet Union once did.

[former9thward]

15. Well there was that time in WW II.

When the U.S. and Europe depended on them to defeat the Nazis. It only cost them about 20 million lives. But to your point an entirely new UN would have to be created. The Security Council members are part of the charter.

[uponit7771]

13. I thought 2/3rds general can override security? Or am I thinking US congress? tia

[former9thward]

14. GA Resolutions are not legally binding.

They can't override the SC. You are thinking of Congress which can override a veto with 2/3s.

[uponit7771]

12. K&R, Syria there were 2 million displaced in 2 years UKR 4 million displaced in 2 weeks. 2 million

... internal and 2 million external, time for the UN to step in.

[WarGamer]

17. You do know the drone that landed in Croatia was Ukrainian, right?

[EndlessWire]

21. And?

Please provide a link to the analysis that this drone was launched by Ukraine.

"Croatian investigators identified the unmanned aircraft that crashed in Zagreb as a Soviet-era Tu-141 that was used for reconnaissance missions in both countries in the 1980s."

Coming from a war zone--and, we don't know and probably will never know exactly where it came from--doesn't mean that the country over who's territory it flew, such as Romania and Hungary, was the aggressor. What we do know is that Russia is the aggressor in this terrible war. I don't care what you think about whether Ukraine is a baddie or not; I care only about those innocent men, women, and children who did nothing to deserve this.

I think you must be young. You talk to me like I am an idiot. It sounds cute and all, but it is antagonistic. Why can't you just inform me of facts, perhaps with a link or two, so I can then see what you are talking about, instead of this sarcastic, dismissive tone you like so much.

As it is, unless you provide me a link to read which definitively states that they figured out who shot the drone, I'll go with the consensus that they don't know who shot it at them. And, it was a bomb. (Do YOU realize that Russia has been trying to engage NATO in the war?)

[WarGamer]

22. lol...didn't mean to trigger you. Just didn't know where you got the info it was Russian.

here's details for ya

Flying direct from Ukraine's border to Zagreb is nearly a 350-mile journey. It has been reported that Ukraine has been putting the high-speed, Soviet-era drones to work in recent days following Russia's invasion of the country. Ukraine is the only known current operator of the Tu-141.

The Tu-141 is a fascinating piece of Soviet-era hardware that Ukraine has upgraded and made useful following the invasion of Crimea in 2014. More of a cruise missile than a traditional drone, the aircraft is rocket-launched from its trailer and flies a predetermined course at transonic speed, collecting various forms of intelligence, before recovering via parachute. It can then be reset and used again.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44697/ukrainian-tu-141-strizh-missile-like-drone-appears-to-have-crashed-in-croatia

[EndlessWire]

28. Source flip off.

I read the article you provided. Here's a quote:

"Nobody knows if it was launched by Ukraine or Russia at this time, but some accounts state it had red stars on it, which are Russian markings."

Here's some technical info that you may enjoy:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/tu-141.htm

I stand by my comment. They do not know who launched it. They do know that NATO did not react.

[WarGamer]

31. very unusual they didn't detect it...

[EndlessWire]

32. It's my understanding that they DID detect it.

I guess both Romania and Hungary watched it fly over. But, nobody in authority at UN? NATO? knew about it until reporters asked about it.

[maxsolomon]

20. Cooking up some weak sauce.

I wish the UN was effective and had teeth, but it doesn't. It never will.

[EndlessWire]

23. I used up my weekly criticism for the UN

already.

They can at least help the "commuters" find a place to stay. They have to do something. And, just because the resolution would not be binding doesn't mean that they couldn't do something. They have people deployed in the field for other things right now. Ukraine called back their peacekeepers, I guess to peacekeep at home.

It just doesn't inspire confidence in the process, except that the UN is not an army that fights a war. My understanding is that they help the displaced civilians. That certainly is a mission that they could agree to in the GA.

[maxsolomon]

25. If they volunteer a peacekeeping force, which they do in multiple conflicts,

that will cement Russia's territorial gains. Look at Cyprus.

[EndlessWire]

29. I have never thought that Russia would leave

the territory. It's pretty much a "make me" situation. I am only now concerned with what NATO and the UN are doing as the war approaches them. The war is going to wash right up next to the neutral borders, like a tub of water.

So far, Russia has shot at Turkish ships, nailed another country's ship (forget which one), sunk a Finnish ship, probably shot that missile, has indiscriminately shot up civilian infrastructure. I read that they killed a woman who was out feeding her chickens. They also apparently shot at their own partner in crime, Belarus. They are out of control.

I'd say that the territorial gains are already cemented when we did not reply.

[AntiFascist]

30. Neutral? and Russia is doing much more than "killing a woman who was out feeding her chickens" n/t

[EndlessWire]

33. That's right.

NATO has taken a hard stance against any involvement in terms of boots on the ground. While the world watches, Ukraine is being decimated. They can't win without help. In particular, the UN is supposed to be neutral.

As far as the woman with the chickens goes, look: It is particularly and peculiarly sad that some old lady out feeding her chickens is shot dead by some Russian prick. It is a symbol of the uselessness, the depravity, the cruelty, the endless suffering of a population being randomly and heartlessly reduced by an invading force. It is a symbol of that kind of destruction. And yeah, I think that the old lady had a right to life the same as any newborn, any young man or woman.

There are all kinds of examples of the civilian population being slaughtered for nothing. Getting killed just because you loved your chickens--or were protecting a food supply, who knows--is sickening. Your comment that Russia is doing more than killing a woman who was out feeding her chickens shows that you do not value her suffering. I do, I think it sucks, and I will not apologize for thinking so.

[AntiFascist]

34. My apologies, and I now understand what you are saying...

I also agree that the UN could do much more. I feel that what we really need is something like the UN, but only limited to true democracies.

[denbot]

27. K&R. n/t