Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money

[DMC]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is there no mechanism in the UN Charter to amend the Charter?  Does the Charter explicitly give the 5 permanent members the power to veto any amendments?

It's Article 108, which requires the approval of all five permanent members:

Quote

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yup.  All five Permanent members must sign on to Amendments of the UN charter:

Quote

Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

 

[Werthead]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It gives them a voice.  That’s why I suggest amending the charter to strip all permanent members of veto power.  
 

@DMC,

Is there no mechanism in the UN Charter to amend the Charter?  Does the Charter explicitly give the 5 permanent members the power to veto any amendments?

Amending the UN Charter requires amendments to be adopt by a supermajority of the General Assembly and it requires all five Permanent Members to unanimously agree on them.

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

It’s quite understandable, likely legally permissible, as peace time law was overwritten by war, and it benefits their war effort. But is it moral? I don’t think that’s an obvious yes, it’s certainly a moral philosophy debate at least. If it’s not even a debate, that has very interesting implications for our society in countless aspects. 

There is time for morality when you are not fighting for literal survival. You have the luxury of being forced to live with your actions only when you are living afterward.

 

[Tywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno, why are pointless questions pointless?

Seems like the UN is pointless in this discussion, no? 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Seems like the UN is pointless in this discussion, no? 

Yes, that's my point.  Removing Russia from the UN (1) isn't possible and (2) doesn't accomplish anything.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Seems like the UN is pointless in this discussion, no? 

I wouldn't say so. Russia was pretty humiliated to lose two General Assembly votes one after the other, with even some of their closest allies abstaining rather than voting in their favour. It really showed how isolated Russia is in an inarguable manner.

[JGP]

Couldn't sleep, but tired lol

 

 

[Tywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, that's my point.  Removing Russia from the UN (1) isn't possible and (2) doesn't accomplish anything.

It would at least stop the above. Russia is making a mockery of the entire apparatus. Just allowing that to continue without a real response undermines the whole thing. 

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I wouldn't say so. Russia was pretty humiliated to lose two General Assembly votes one after the other, with even some of their closest allies abstaining rather than voting in their favour. It really showed how isolated Russia is in an inarguable manner.

I think its dangerous to assume they felt humiliated or that they actually feel shame. I don't know if that's a characterization or an assumption. 

I think they should feel pretty humiliated, but I doubt they do. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It would at least stop the above. Russia is making a mockery of the entire apparatus. Just allowing that to continue without a real response undermines the whole thing. 

The US has used its veto power to defend itself and its allies in the past.  That doesn’t make Russia’s actions here any less unjust.  But it demonstrates it is par for the course in this venue.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It would at least stop the above. Russia is making a mockery of the entire apparatus. Just allowing that to continue without a real response undermines the whole thing. 

This does not in any way amount to accomplishing anything.  I suppose you can describe it as "making a mockery" or "undermining" the UN if you want, but really all it's doing is clarifying and emphasizing the institutional limitations of the UN that have always existed and been highlighted many times before.

[RhaenysBee]

5 hours ago, Babblebauble said:

Snivelry. What do you think a Ukrainian, in Ukraine today, would say if you poo poo'ed their initiative to resist a foreign occupier from a land that has historically mass murdered their people on casual whims?

No, I’m sorry, but I didn’t “poo poo” an initiative to resist a foreign occupier. I said that killing people isn’t a morally black and white area. I didn’t say I condemn people who fight back against a foreign occupier. I won’t repeat this again, because I’m not at my own defense trial. My heart breaks for Ukraine, but it also does for all the Russian lives lost in this war. That doesn’t mean I condone the invasion or the war or the inexcusable war crimes committed by Russia. It just means that I don’t believe more killing is the right answer. If that makes me a terrible dishonorable scum in your eyes, then be it. 

4 hours ago, a free shadow said:

Well, yes. I miss the point of repeating (at lenght) that we need to look at all the "if"s, without looking at all the "if"s. What is the point?

If you think somebody here rushed in their judgement of the situation, it is dishonest to hide behind platitudes, because honest argument would be to take a position, be ready to hear counterarguments and admit it in case you are wrong.

If it is meant to be an insight in itself that there is always more than one storyline in the story, I am surprised how this can be presented as an insight and not understood as a given.

Now it comes across as the rest of the faux-insightful lines really meant to misdirect the point, in line with "good people on both sides" and "won't you think about the children".

I still don’t get what you mean about the ifs.

 

 

also, tell me I’m insensitive and ask me to not talk about this anymore. Tell me I’m disrespectful because we cannot understand what these people are going through and shouldn’t think about their decisions. Tell me this topic is too sensitive and we shouldn’t discuss it. Tell me you like to take a stand in a particular matter and only discuss that particular matter from. the stands taken so I should drop it. Tell me you fundamentally disagree and don’t understand where I’m coming from. But I respectfully ask you to not insinuate or suggest that I don’t support and stand by Ukraine, or that i don’t have sympathy for them, or that I condone war crimes, and especially that I excuse the terrible things that have been done to civilians in this or any other war. 

@Zorral you are very sweet, but there’s really no need. I can and will live with people’s bad opinion of me and I did learn much needed lessons from this. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

No, I’m sorry, but I didn’t “poo poo” an initiative to resist a foreign occupier. I said that killing people isn’t a morally black and white area. I didn’t say I condemn people who fight back against a foreign occupier. I won’t repeat this again, because I’m not at my own defense trial. My heart breaks for Ukraine, but it also does for all the Russian lives lost in this war. That doesn’t mean I condone the invasion or the war or the inexcusable war crimes committed by Russia. It just means that I don’t believe more killing is the right answer. If that makes me a terrible dishonorable scum in your eyes, then be it. 

I still don’t get what you mean about the ifs.

 

 

also, tell me I’m insensitive and ask me to not talk about this anymore. Tell me I’m disrespectful because we cannot understand what these people are going through and shouldn’t think about their decisions. Tell me this topic is too sensitive and we shouldn’t discuss it. Tell me you like to take a stand in a particular matter and only discuss that particular matter from. the stands taken so I should drop it. Tell me you fundamentally disagree and don’t understand where I’m coming from. But I respectfully ask you to not insinuate or suggest that I don’t support and stand by Ukraine, or that i don’t have sympathy for them, or that I condone war crimes, and especially that I excuse the terrible things that have been done to civilians in this or any other war. 

@Zorral you are very sweet, but there’s really no need. I can and will live with people’s bad opinion of me and I didn’t learn much needed lessons from this. 

For the record… I do not have a bad opinion of you and enjoy high level discussions of difficult moral and ethical issues.  The questions you present, in the abstract sense, are quite difficult and engaging.

But, maybe, this isn’t the best thread for it.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, RhaenysBee said:

 If that makes me a terrible dishonorable scum in your eyes, then be it. 

 

Not at all. Appeasement is the tactic every American school child is taught when confronted with a belligerent. I won't hold it against you that you internalized this past the point of good sense, it's not your fault. I just disagree very, very, very much with letting abusers do whatever they want for the sake of some academic's notion of pure morality. In fact, as evidenced, even the suggestion of such can get me animated.

[Werthead]

42 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I think its dangerous to assume they felt humiliated or that they actually feel shame. I don't know if that's a characterization or an assumption. 

I think they should feel pretty humiliated, but I doubt they do. 

I think they were in the sense that they seemed to expect this all to go through the Security Council where they (and/or China) would veto everything, so other powers repeatedly invoking the General Assembly (where there is no veto) I think surprised them. It's hard to seriously claim you are in the right when three-quarters of the globe voted against you, and a lot more abstained.

Maybe you're right in that it was immaterial to them and their domestic audience (the Russians who were aghast at the results of the vote were probably people opposed to the invasion anyway), but on a global platform it did show that a lot of world opinion was arrayed against Russia, and not just "the usual suspects."

[RhaenysBee]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

But, maybe, this isn’t the best thread for it.

Certainly learned that. Wasn’t the appropriate place to bring these thoughts into. 

20 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Not at all. Appeasement is the tactic every American school child is taught when confronted with a belligerent. I won't hold it against you that you internalized this past the point of good sense, it's not your fault. I just disagree very, very, very much with letting abusers do whatever they want for the sake of some academic's notion of pure morality. In fact, as evidenced, even the suggestion of such can get me animated.

Oh my goodness, you have no idea how flattering some would find our education system to be mistaken for American. No, it was family background that taught me to avoid conflict at all cost. (And for the record, I didn’t suggest that. But I’m dropping it, if I haven’t managed to articulate my meaning until now, I won’t succeed now)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@RhaenysBee

You could start a thread for an abstract discussion of when violence/force is or is not appropriate…

[Tywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

This does not in any way amount to accomplishing anything.  I suppose you can describe it as "making a mockery" or "undermining" the UN if you want, but really all it's doing is clarifying and emphasizing the institutional limitations of the UN that have always existed and been highlighted many times before.

So let's do better, or is that too much to ask?

[polishgenius]

I was gonna pitch in with 'RB is good people but I agree that if even Scott isn't making a spin-off thread to continue this, we should probably wrap the discussion coz we're not in the emotional frame for it. But I see y'all got there first but also Scott did suggest a spinoff. 

Anyway. In other news. This thread is mostly focused on the immediate on-the-ground consequences of the war, obviosuly, but I just watched Real Life Lore's vid summarising some longer term and more international consequences and while most of it wasn't new news to me, just a good summation, I hadn't really known about or considered the importance of wheat from that area of the world to the Middle East and North Africa, and that could cause big problems. Like Lebanon imports 60% of its wheat from Ukraine apparently, and their reserve silos were mostly blown up by the Beirut explosion, so they only have a month's reserve. They were already in the shit - they're gonna struggle. And they're not the only ones. Pretty scary thought.