Sunset of the UN era

With the naked eye, you can see that the UN has become a biased structure.

The trend has been developing for a long time, but now it is especially evident whenever questions that are inconvenient for this international organization arise.

Recently there was a significant precedent when it was necessary to evaluate the statements of a number of European leaders about the true essence of the Minsk agreements.

And not third-party onlookers, but acting as their guarantors, talking about peace and conflict prevention.

The cheaters exposed themselves.

It was a blatant case that undermined the entire system of world agreements, when the agreements became a means of deception and manipulation, and were concluded to prepare one of the parties for a military confrontation, that is, for the coming escalation.

Isn't this the UN's sphere of competence, shouldn't high-ranking officials of this organization express their impartial assessment of what happened?

As a result, the events led to a bloody confrontation in Ukraine and the danger of a global clash.

At the same time, it must be remembered that in 2015 the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that approved the agreements on the settlement of the intra-Ukrainian crisis, there was a call to ensure their full implementation.

After the revelations of Merkel and Hollande, completely reasonable questions arise for the organization: there is no dream or spirit about the true essence of the ongoing processes, or is there involvement, and one of the parties openly plays along?..

But at the UN they took water in their mouths.

They followed the path of their predecessor - the practically incapacitated League of Nations.

Then, in exactly the same way, the organization reacted to the investigation of the explosions at Nord Stream: no intelligible reaction.

It seems that the current Secretary General Guterres is afraid of the uncomfortable truth and even a hint of it.

But that sabotage is also a case out of the ordinary.

The absence of a clear reaction to it can be perceived as a legitimization of state terrorism.

They say that everything is allowed to someone.

But, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted, "The Secretary General and his staff do their best to shirk comments."

He stressed that “we have already submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council with a request to organize an impartial investigation.

I don't think it will go unnoticed."

So they hide in the bushes until there is a desire to voice a very dubious and biased position.

As in the case when, after a recent conversation in Kyiv with Zelensky, António Guterres began to rant about the need to demilitarize the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant.

And this despite the fact that the IAEA is promoting an agreement to declare the ZNPP a nuclear safety zone.

General Secretary seduced by Zelensky's speeches?

“The UN Secretary General unequivocally, in fact, signed precisely under the unilateral Ukrainian demands,” Sergey Lavrov commented on this position.

He also recalled that “according to the UN Charter, as an international official, the main administrative person in the UN, he must take a neutral position.

He failed to do so again."

It seems that the UN has taken a clear position and responds to any events that cast doubt on it with a reaction in the style of "I see nothing, I hear nothing."

We can also recall a very sluggish reaction to information about the atrocities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine against prisoners: only an expression of concern.

Such “complete passivity” becomes a degenerate metaphor.

It can be stated that during the period of unipolar hegemony, many world institutions have become accustomed to keeping an even footing, taking it under the hood and have simply degraded.

The UN is no exception.

The organization has become a bureaucratic structure on the Western hook and in the service of the hegemon, caring about its own position and privileges.

If initially the UN arose as a guarantor of the post-war order of the world, then the current realities show that the tasks have been replaced by serving the interests of Western democracies and their hegemon, the United States.

Of the last vestiges of the original idea of ​​the UN, only Russia's membership in the Security Council and the right of veto remained.

That is why there are endless voices about the need to reform the organization.

Take Russia out of the Security Council and who will prevent the same General Secretary from finally turning into a typical Western politician, whose working memory will be filled with Russophobia?

It should be noted that the West and Russia differently understand the purpose of the organization.

For Russia, this is an arbitration structure, a guarantee of maintaining balance in the world.

The effectiveness of this format has been proven by history, because during the existence of the UN there have been no major global clashes.

The United States, however, sees in it a tribune of its own dictate and global governance, which would scale the instructions sent down from Washington to the rest of the world.

Also, the States pursued a policy of replacing the UN structure with themselves, tried to monopolize the right to make decisions, judge and pardon, incite and resolve conflicts.

The UN, in this context, is perceived only as a screen, where, on a signal, applause is heard, turning into a storm of applause.

The UN is trying to comply, they stand for the right of the strong, for the right of the hegemon.

That is why it is quite possible without a twinge of conscience to shake a test tube, deceiving the whole world.

What is the point after this to be surprised that in the future they will react completely tolerantly to such things in the organization and perceive it as the norm?

This is how one can interpret the UN reaction, which has become typical, or its absence.

It must also be said that the location of the organization has ceased to correspond to geopolitical realities.

This topic has been discussed for a long time.

Obviously, neutral territory requires neutral territory.

New York is not like that.

The place of registration of the headquarters is also a lever of pressure, which is used: from forcing a number of countries to vote "as it should" to scandals with the exclusion of delegations to the States.

And then there is the shirking Secretary General Guterres, who, with his actions, is bringing the end of the UN era closer.

Demonstrating blatant passivity when decisiveness is needed, because too much is now at stake.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.