General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion: Why can't the UN send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine?
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
(1,371 posts)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
(5,767 posts)I hoped the General Assembly could override them, but that was wishful thinking
Amishman
(5,538 posts)It is especially just a stage for discussion
CanonRay
(14,036 posts)is that the Russian delegation walked out for some reason, and the Security Council voted yes in their absence. True?
OneBlueDotS-Carolina
(1,371 posts)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
(31,798 posts)The USSR was boycotting the SC at the time of the Korean resolution.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)They were boycotting the UN over their refusal to admit China.
EarlG
(21,885 posts)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
(5,767 posts)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
(5,538 posts)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
(21,885 posts)They have held that seat for the last thirty years but technically it belongs to the USSR, not Russia.
Stuckinthebush
(10,816 posts)The UN is useless in this situation.
Wicked Blue
(5,767 posts)I confess I don't know much about the workings of the UN.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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
(5,767 posts)EndlessWire
(6,373 posts)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
(5,767 posts)Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)Still wondering how to protect the nuclear assets?
former9thward
(31,798 posts)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
(143,998 posts)According to Putin, a no-fly zone will be a declaration of war on Russia
Link to tweet
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.
Well instantly view them as participants in a military conflict, Putin said.
Kaleva
(36,145 posts)Peacekeeping forces aren't sent into active war zoned