EDIT: U.N. Regional Information Centre for Western Europe bans use of "war" about Ukraine
Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2022, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)
However the U.N. itself has not banned it.
According to Snopes, the U.N. Regional Information Centre for Western Europe at the Department of Global Communications issued internal guidance via email on March 7, 2022, to avoid using the word "war" until the U.N. had an official policy.
Snopes also reported that the U.N. as an entity did not ban the word “war.” The Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General at the United Nations in New York told Snopes that no such email had been sent to staff from U.N. headquarters, and provided multiple examples of senior U.N. officials using the word "war" in reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
From the internal memo, there are some specific examples of language to use/not use at the moment:
“conflict” or “military offensive” and NOT “war” or “invasion” when referring to the situation in Ukraine [please note we are waiting for updated guidance on specific terminology following the General Assembly resolution, which notably uses the word “aggression.]
“Ukraine” and NOT “the Ukraine”
“Kyiv” and NOT “Kiev” in English
Zelenskyy” and NOT “Zelensky”
More are link:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/un-ban-word-war-russia-ukraine/
I still can't believe this! The UN iegional Information Centre for Western Europe apparently is tiptoeing around the delicate sensitivities of a murderous psychopathic dictator?
So what are they calling this criminal invasion? A birthday party? a scuffle?
Is Putin a murderous psychopath, or merely a concerned citizen?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Maybe tiff or scuffle would work, you think?
Hi WickedBlue. Ty for this & all your posts! 
🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Staff were reportedly advised to instead use “conflict” or “military offensive.”
Madison Dapcevich
Published 8 March 2022
Claim
In early March 2022, the United Nations banned its staff from using the word “war” in reference to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Rating
False
Context
A spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general told Snopes that no such email had been sent to staff from U.N. headquarters, and provided multiple examples of senior U.N. officials using the word "war" in reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, they were not able to rule out the possibility that a local manager may have sent out such an email.
(snip)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/un-ban-word-war-russia-ukraine/
I greatly appreciate your investigating this.
It sounded bogus because the U.N. doesn't do stuff like that.
You may have nations negotiating the wording of the language that will eventually be used in certain resolutions and that often "spills out into the public" but something like this making it into any resolution, let alone sanctioned by the U.N. leadership, is a non-starter.
They have been "anti-U.N." for decades - particularly when they elect a President who will refuse to pay the U.S.'s dues for membership. 
By Joanne Omang
January 3, 1987
The Reagan administration has promised to try to pay withheld dues to the United Nations in return for recent changes there, but neither the administration's supplemental budget request for fiscal 1987 nor its fiscal 1988 proposal asks for such money, officials said yesterday. State Department officials said there are no plans to ask Congress for the estimated $106 million shortfall in 1987 dues and that the 1988 budget request remains about $90 million short of estimated assessments for that year. The United Nations voted Dec. 19 to implement procedural and cost-cutting measures that U.S. Ambassador Vernon A. Walters hailed as "really historic."
He said the administration "will do our darnedest" to restore the arrearages. And President Reagan phoned Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar to express his pleasure at the vote. "He said he hoped it would enable him to go to Congress to obtain the necessary funds," Perez de Cuellar said, according to U.N. spokesman Francois Giuliani. "We do know that {the arrearage} is not in the current proposals." Perez de Cuellar had said earlier that the United Nations faced a major financial crisis because of congressional and administration slashes in the U.S. payment, which ordinarily makes up 25 percent of the U.N. budget.
However, the administration's funding requests were already drafted at the time of the U.N. vote, and no changes are contemplated, a White House official said. A later request for the money was described as "still under active consideration," but any decision requires congressional action first to lift a bar to full funding imposed in 1985. "The plan is to see what happens at the U.N., whether they make good on all the commitments . . . , and then to see if Congress agrees these are the reforms we were looking for," a State Department official said. "Then we'll take care of the arrearages."
Failure to come up with the funds could jeopardize the "gentlemen's agreement" painfully hammered out at the United Nations that meets some U.S. demands for a bigger role in budget decisions while leaving majority control in the hands of poor Third World nations. Under the agreement, the donor countries -- including the United States -- that provide 80 percent of the $800 million U.N. budget will obtain larger influence over budget size, priorities and increases. Those functions are to be transferred to a committee that operates by consensus, giving the major nations a veto. Those questions were previously decided by majority vote, meaning small nations that provided only 2 percent of the money could control the outcome.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/01/03/overdue-us-funds-for-un-in-doubt-despite-promises/b5972cc0-bbd5-4573-9ba1-76dd252842f4/