Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

munchi333 t1_jclcw4e wrote

Reply to comment by Brilliant_Exit3406 in Ukraine war - latest: Judges issue arrest warrant for Putin over alleged war crimes; second country to send fighter jets to Ukraine | World News by [deleted]

The security council exists for one reason and one reason only: to prevent WWIII.

Removing a large, powerful nuclear power would dramatically increase the likelihood of WWIII.

40

EvangelineOfSky t1_jclnvn9 wrote

I mean, the closest we ever got to WWIII was the Seuz Crisis, because of France and UK using their VETOs..

it was actually deescalated and world war III prevented because Canada took the issue to the General Assembly and ended up having them create the UNEF under command of E. L. M. Burns..

I just think its worth noting, the General Assembly did more to prevent WWIII than the security council ever did

1

munchi333 t1_jclubln wrote

World war does not abide by democratic debate.

If Russia is “removed” from the security council (which there is no legal means to do so) they would immediately leave the UN and likely throw the future of the entire UN into chaos.

It would be exactly the same as Japan leaving the League of Nations prior to WWII and would render the UN pointless. Because what would happen then? The UN would condemn Russia? So what? Would a UN coalition decide to intervene? Hello WWIII.

Hence the entire purpose of the security council: prevent direct confrontation of major powers and prevent WWIII by giving them a “do whatever you want card so long as it’s not too bad.”

10

Maleficent-Aioli1946 t1_jcm7pql wrote

Ehh..

Not to limit Canadian contributions, but the Suez Canal Crisis was ended because the US threatened to destroy the French and British economies unless they went to the negotiating table.

4

DistortoiseLP t1_jcnhuqb wrote

"So help me God we're gonna sell Sterling bonds until you lose your shirts if you don't pull your ass out of Egypt."

2