50 countries issue joint statement against Russia's veto on Ukraine resolution: UN

[Rogue Valley]

50 countries issue joint statement against Russia's veto on Ukraine resolution: UN

The joint statement, which was read aloud by the US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said this resolution was 'vital and straightforward.'

www.oneindia.com

2.26.22
As many as fifty counties have issued a joint statement saying that Russia "abused" its veto power by blocking a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution condemning the Russian military action in Ukraine. The joint statement, which was read aloud by the US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said this resolution was "vital and straightforward."

"Fundamentally, it was about whether the countries on the Security Council - charged with maintaining international peace and security - believe in upholding the UN Charter," the statement said. Holding Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible, the signatories said that Russia's action amounts to "violation of the UN Charter." "Russia has abused its power today to veto our strong resolution. But Russia cannot veto our voices. Russia cannot veto the Ukrainian people. Russia cannot veto their own people protesting this war in the streets. Russia cannot veto the UN Charter. Russia cannot, and will not, veto accountability," the statement added.​

Russia used its UN veto to prevent the UN Security Council from condemning its invasion of Ukraine.

Putin gets no support from UN Security Council over Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin has received no support from members of the U.N. Security Council for his actions to bring separatists in eastern Ukraine under Moscow’s control

abcnews.go.com

 

[MikePrime]

What a silly, useless organization.

 

[Exquisitor]

What a silly, useless organization.

Not totally.

 

[MikePrime]

Not totally.

Maybe so but more useless than it is useful.

China and Russia being on the council is a joke.

 

[phoenix2020]

Not totally.

Agreed. They’re not entirely useless. Just mostly useless.

In other breaking news, another group of 50 people came together to say that they disagree with someone about something.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

50 countries issue joint statement against Russia's veto on Ukraine resolution: UN

The joint statement, which was read aloud by the US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said this resolution was 'vital and straightforward.'

www.oneindia.com

Russia used its UN veto to prevent the UN Security Council from condemning its invasion of Ukraine.

Putin gets no support from UN Security Council over Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin has received no support from members of the U.N. Security Council for his actions to bring separatists in eastern Ukraine under Moscow’s control

abcnews.go.com

Russia having veto power in the UN is similar to the prisoners having veto power over the warden.

It's ****in' stupid.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Maybe so but more useless than it is useful.

China and Russia being on the council is a joke.

Present for negotiations, sure.

Voting member on the security council?

That's just dumb.

 

[Mr Person]

Maybe so but more useless than it is useful.

China and Russia being on the council is a joke.

Present for negotiations, sure.

Voting member on the security council?

That's just dumb.

It's baked into the entire point of having a U.N. in the first place: avoiding entangled alliances that could easily pull everyone into a world war over some dispute between two countries, say, even just an assassination. Without having Russia and China on the Security Council you might as well scrap the UN and just have a super beef-ed up NATO type organization, which would undoubtedly be opposed by Russia-China-BadActorStates's own alliance. Which would tend to make it more likely that we see another world war.

There really is no point to having an organization devoted to tying down conflicts in words and political machinations so that they don't just blow straight up into a major hot war if you don't have the biggest potential belligerents in it, active and with power. The price of an increased promise of peace is indeed the seeming absurdity of having a belligerent like Russia on the security council, able to foil stuff like this (then again, exactly what would a "condemnation" accomplish re: Russia?).

 

[Rogue Valley]

(then again, exactly what would a "condemnation" accomplish re: Russia?).

It is intended as a record for posterity. Who stood where.

 

[Mr Person]

It is intended as a record for posterity. Who stood where.

I think we have that record either way, no?

We'd have to boot Russia from the UN entirely to remove it from the security council. There's no mechanism otherwise. And if we did that, China would probably resist everything until either we brought them back in fully or we booted China. And if we booted China too, there's no damn point to having a UN . China/Russia are the most likely instigators of any major conflict between countries in the reasonably near future, whether direct or proxy.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It's baked into the entire point of having a U.N. in the first place: avoiding entangled alliances that could easily pull everyone into a world war over some dispute between two countries, say, even just an assassination. Without having Russia and China on the Security Council you might as well scrap the UN and just have a super beef-ed up NATO type organization, which would undoubtedly be opposed by Russia-China-BadActorStates's own alliance. Which would tend to make it more likely that we see another world war.

There really is no point to having an organization devoted to tying down conflicts in words and political machinations so that they don't just blow straight up into a major hot war if you don't have the biggest potential belligerents in it, active and with power. The price of an increased promise of peace is indeed the seeming absurdity of having a belligerent like Russia on the security council, able to foil stuff like this (then again, exactly what would a "condemnation" accomplish re: Russia?).

Able to veto sanctioning themselves for unwarranted aggression? Bad idea IMHO.

 

[Common Sense 1]

This is 100% wrong. Russia needs to be held accountable for their illegal and vicious behavior. Actions like this make the UN a joke.

 

[oneworld2]

Wow, the UN is now being referenced wrt Ukraine. Some people have no shame it would appear

Of the 6 biggest arms dealing countries in the world , 5 reside on the UNSC and, as permanent members they enjoy a veto power,

Citing China and Russia as the only ones to make the UNSC a " joke" is to not understand how the US has used its veto power to scupper huge world consensuses about an occupation that have gone on for over half a century.

Maybe others don't see the hypocrisy over the US and others stance on Ukraine wrt occupations but it is the elephant in the room here imho

 

[oneworld2]

Able to veto sanctioning themselves for unwarranted aggression? Bad idea IMHO.

But not confined to China and Russia

 

[Rexedgar]

UN has been toothless from inception, imo.

 

[HangLow]

50 countries issue joint statement against Russia's veto on Ukraine resolution: UN

The joint statement, which was read aloud by the US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said this resolution was 'vital and straightforward.'

www.oneindia.com

Russia used its UN veto to prevent the UN Security Council from condemning its invasion of Ukraine.

Putin gets no support from UN Security Council over Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin has received no support from members of the U.N. Security Council for his actions to bring separatists in eastern Ukraine under Moscow’s control

abcnews.go.com

​

 

[joluoto]

No one should have a veto in the UN. Every time a Veto is used it's abuse of power.