this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
1219 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2697 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn't be necessary

[–] hansl@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.

You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You've never heard of UN peacekeepers?

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do you know what a UN peacekeeper is?

They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there's countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.

So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren't there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.

Don't get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.

But peacekeepers aren't a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there's peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn't have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn't have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sigh. You're missing my point

[–] nac82@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Nah they addressed it. You missed their point.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

the un and nato serve two very different and distinct purposes though.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you're right there), we're talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn't there. Or I didn't intend, at least. In no way am I trying to minimise Putin's evil behaviour. The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn't be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I'm not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.