UN resolution towards Peace-keeping mission for Ukraine in the pipeline?

[Kruska]

In regards to the Chinese peace proposal I had already forwarded a week ago, that IMO - China's aim is very likely to point out the UN's responsibility towards ending wars.

In today's German news Media, it has been reported that members of the German national security council held a meeting in this regard.
Following a political talk-show having the same topic the day before.
Attendants were high ranking representatives of major German political parties.

It was in general positively taken into view , that indeed a UN resolution for a Peace-keeping mission should be brought onto way
Participants in this peace-keeping force would most likely be recruited from BRICS member states e.g. China. India and Brazil

It would make sense, since it is viewed as an additional safety guarantee, in regards for Russia not likely to order attacks onto an UN peace-keeping force consisting of BRICS members.

It would further enhance the chance for the UN to set the basis to enact "the peoples right for self-determination" since in an UN controlled and stabilized environment free and unhindered polls could be conducted. According to the UN Charter "the peoples right to self-determination" is clearly set above maybe wanted or dictated decisions by governments represented via Kiev or Moscow in regards to the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass etc.

Immediate negative reaction came only from the Ukrainian side also including Ukraines Deputy foreign minister, refuting the idea with the argument, that Ukrainians never wanted such a peoples referendum.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

The UN is about as useful as a condom with air holes for breathability.

 

[Kruska]

The UN is about as useful as a condom with air holes for breathability.

The UN is only regarded as useless when it comes to resolutions that do not pave the way for the USA or it's "democratic" allies. - see WMD's Iraq.
The present UN condemnation of Russia's attack onto Ukraine by the UN was greeted with enthusiasm by the USA and it's a political coalition.

All UN Peace-missions that had a sufficient mandate - especially those regulating the use of arms and force by blue-helmets, have been very successful missions.
Rest assured that e.g. China will not acquit towards a China led UN mission or UN Ukraine peace-mission resolution - without the sufficient backing.

 

[luiza]

Feel sure that dear and very smart Uncle P will privately scoff at UN proposals .
In his position I would not trust the US and NATO as they have lied time after time for over 30years .

Why on earth would you even think about believing them when you do not need either and have formed alliances elsewhere at a time when the US dollar is due to collapse and US military might is no longer treated very seriously ?

 

[Kruska]

Feel sure that dear and very smart Uncle P will privately scoff at UN proposals .

Depending on who proposes such an UN resolution I would say. According to Putin's "conviction" certain areas are supposedly Russian motherland, aka the majority of people living in these areas - should/could be voting for an independent state or a unification with Russia or Ukraine. If it is true what Putin claims - what better way to achieve this - other then by this ridiculous war since Feb, 2022.

In his position I would not trust the US and NATO as they have lied time after time for over 30years .

It isn't about trusting the USA or NATO or Ukraine or Russia, - since they all obviously can't be trusted. That is why the UN needs to come in to act as a neutral buffer. It was understood by most military's and even some politicians, that the previous armistice between Ukraine and Russia wouldn't work out.
It's about stopping this meaningless war in the first place. Since IMO aside from death and destruction on both sides, neither side can "win" this war.

Why on earth would you even think about believing them when you do not need either and have formed alliances elsewhere at a time when the US dollar is due to collapse and US military might is no longer treated very seriously ?

The Chinese are known to have a longtime view and strategy as opposed to those of Western countries, they do not see war as a solution, they haven't been in or incited a war since the new CPC ideology came into place in 1981. - e.g. who knows who will rule Russia and Ukraine in 5-10 years.
Who knows what exact political/economic changes might occur in the EU and the USA in the next 5-10 years. But in the meantime get this war to stop.

Once an UN resolution comes in, we will see if any or which one of those "privileged" UN members will pull out their veto-joker.

 

[Mushroom]

It was in general positively taken into view , that indeed a UN resolution for a Peace-keeping mission should be brought onto way

It does not matter, because one will never pass.

Russia (Soviet Union) learned the hard way the single time they allowed such a resolution to pass against them or their allies, and that was in Korea. Every single time it has been brought up since, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Crimea it died before it even came up for a vote because it was no secret that with their veto power, Russia would quash it and it would never pass.

So even discussing it is pretty much a non-issue. It will never happen.

 

[Kruska]

It does not matter, because one will never pass.

Russia (Soviet Union) learned the hard way the single time they allowed such a resolution to pass against them or their allies, and that was in Korea. Every single time it has been brought up since, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Crimea it died before it even came up for a vote because it was no secret that with their veto power, Russia would quash it and it would never pass.

So even discussing it is pretty much a non-issue. It will never happen.

The Soviet-Union was boycotting the UN Council over the issue of admitting the PRC to the UN. - therefore they couldn't make use of their veto. The USA was aware of that.
The UN sanctioned mission for South-Korea wasn't a Peace-keeping mission - but a US led UN military intervention to liberate South-Korea and later even expanded towards attacking North-Korea. The USA and it's allies literally raped the UN Charter.

There was never a UN Peacekeeping-mission resolution or UN Peace resolution towards the Vietnam-conflict. Due to the USA not having respected previous agreements under the Geneva protocol in 1954. The UN Security Council never even convened in this matter. Therefore the USSR never vetoed such a resolution.

The USSR had clearly stated e.g. in 1966

Mr, FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The Soviet delegation considers it necessary to reaffirm most vigorously its objection to the
convening of the Security Council to discuss the question of Viet-Nam and declares that it is opposed to the inclusion of this question in the Council’s agenda, We would remind
the members of the Council that the Geneva Agreements of 1954U must be strictly observed; it is within the framework of these Agreements that the
question of Viet-Nam must be settled, with the participation of all parties concerned.
In this connection, we should like to draw the Council’s attention to the message dated 24 January 1966 from Ho Chi Minh, the President of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, in which he points out that in 1954 the United States of America made a solemn promise in Geneva to refrain from violating the Geneva Agreements by the threat or use
of force and it is the ‘violation of that undertaking by the United ‘States and its unleashing of aggressive war in Viet-Nam that has resulted in such tragic consequences, In his
message, President Ho Chi Minh goes on to say:
“The United States of America maintains that it is respecting the Geneva Agreements. One of the basic provisions of those Agreements, however, prohibits the introduction of foreign troops into Viet-Nam. If the United States is really respecting the Agreements, it must withdraw all its troops and those of its satellites from South Vietnam.
There was never a UN Peacekeeping-mission resolution towards Afghanistan - but a UN draft-resolution S/13729 calling onto the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops in Afghanistan - vetoed by the USSR.

Same goes for Georgia, it wasn't a UN Peace-keeping mission but an United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) S/RES/1839 and not vetoed by Russia.

Until today the UN has not passed or forwarded a UN Peacekeeping mission in regards to Crimea. The UN resolution this year in regards to Ukraine/Russia was only in regards to condemning the Russian attack. - no UN peace-keeping mission was forwarded so far.

It will however be most interesting to see, as to who might veto a UN resolution towards a peace-keeping mission in Ukraine. I don't believe that it might be Russia. Let's see.

One can read up all these UN issues/resolutions:

Research Guides: UN Security Council Meetings & Outcomes Tables: Vetoes

Research Guides: UN Security Council Meetings & Outcomes Tables: Vetoes

research.un.org

 

[luiza]

Depending on who proposes such an UN resolution I would say. According to Putin's "conviction" certain areas are supposedly Russian motherland, aka the majority of people living in these areas - should/could be voting for an independent state or a unification with Russia or Ukraine. If it is true what Putin claims - what better way to achieve this - other then by this ridiculous war since Feb, 2022.

It isn't about trusting the USA or NATO or Ukraine or Russia, - since they all obviously can't be trusted. That is why the UN needs to come in to act as a neutral buffer. It was understood by most military's and even some politicians, that the previous armistice between Ukraine and Russia wouldn't work out.
It's about stopping this meaningless war in the first place. Since IMO aside from death and destruction on both sides, neither side can "win" this war.

The Chinese are known to have a longtime view and strategy as opposed to those of Western countries, they do not see war as a solution, they haven't been in or incited a war since the new CPC ideology came into place in 1981. - e.g. who knows who will rule Russia and Ukraine in 5-10 years.
Who knows what exact political/economic changes might occur in the EU and the USA in the next 5-10 years. But in the meantime get this war to stop.

Once an UN resolution comes in, we will see if any or which one of those "privileged" UN members will pull out their veto-jo

Enjoyed your considered reply.
We view the UN 100% differently . I see it as totally Deep State, full of nobodies who became obligated to DS , or, chose to work for DS, and now the WEF's principles.
I would no more trust them collectively than Lucifer's full family . Uncle P knows that full well .

My view of US and EU stability and direction could also not be more different .
I see both the US and EU close to collapse as we shall see when the markets move down sharply later this year and the dollar floats away as a reserve( petrodollar) currency .

China and Russia , perhaps with India steadily joining them , will dominate planet proceedings .I believe both will seek to actively destroy the UK in economic terms for a multitude of past sins and watching the US implode now needs little comment other than , Crash, Bang., Wallop.

Time will decide .
imho

 

[Mushroom]

There was never a UN Peacekeeping-mission resolution or UN Peace resolution towards the Vietnam-conflict.

Because submitting one would have been a waste of time.

Same goes for Georgia, it wasn't a UN Peace-keeping mission but an United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) S/RES/1839 and not vetoed by Russia.

Because it was after the fact, and there was no resolution for them to leave the territory they then occupied. An observer mission is a very different thing, and Russia knew it was toothless.

Until today the UN has not passed or forwarded a UN Peacekeeping mission in regards to Crimea. The UN resolution this year in regards to Ukraine/Russia was only in regards to condemning the Russian attack. - no UN peace-keeping mission was forwarded so far.

And there never will be one, as once again Russia will not allow anything to go forward that might mean it has to give up that territory.

And how the nations vote does not matter, because other than nations that are largely already allies with the West or Russia, any that did vote would likely simply abstain. Not vote for or against, as that might affect relations with the other countries involved.

It is not unlike the situation that nations like the Swiss and Finland found themselves in during the latter half of WWII. Before going to the Soviets, Japan tried to use both of those countries to forward armistice offers to the Allied powers. And both nations realized quickly that the offers Japan was offering (return to 1941 lines) would be outright rejected by all of the Allied powers. And more than that, would reduce any influence or negotiations with them at future dates simply for proposing such a settlement.

That is the situation that many countries would find themselves in. And the non-permanent members of the UNSC at this moment are Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland, and the UAE. And of those, some votes could be predicted. Japan will unquestionably side with the US, Brazil and UAE probably would as well as Malta. For most of the rest there is no benefit to them for voting for such a resolution which is guaranteed to fail, and would likely harm relations between them and Russia.

Albania would also likely side with such a resolution, as they have themselves already forwarded two of them through the UNSC. They co-wrote the February 2022 resolution with the US, and Russia vetoed it. They also co-wrote the later procedural vote which did pass. But that was procedural, and as such could not be vetoed. And it is worth in reality about as much as used toilet paper. And in September of last year there Russia again vetoed a resolution to condemn their annexation of occupied areas of Ukraine.

 

[ESay]

All talks about this resolution are meaningless. First of all, this resolution must be approved by all the UN Security Council members that have a veto right (or more correctly, no one of them must be against it). In the current circumstances it is possible.

No one Ukrainian politician in the current situation will dare to sign any deal that provides territorial concessions. The same goes for Russia.

This war will 'end' with a stalemate. There is no other choice.

 

[Silver Cat]

All talks about this resolution are meaningless. First of all, this resolution must be approved by all the UN Security Council members that have a veto right (or more correctly, no one of them must be against it). In the current circumstances it is possible.

No one Ukrainian politician in the current situation will dare to sign any deal that provides territorial concessions. The same goes for Russia.

This war will 'end' with a stalemate. There is no other choice.

Actually there are other choices. For example - decisive victory of Russia or NATO.

 

[ESay]

Actually there are other choices. For example - decisive victory of Russia or NATO.

NATO won't be directly involved in the fighting. And Russia seems to be incapable to do so.

 

[Silver Cat]

NATO won't be directly involved in the fighting. And Russia seems to be incapable to do so.

1. It depends on your (or Russian) understanding of the term 'direct involvement'.
2. Technically Russia is capable to do so. The only problem is to achieve their goals with minimal loses. And how long Ukraine will stand without direct NATO support?

 

[ESay]

1. It depends on your (or Russian) understanding of the term 'direct involvement'.
2. Technically Russia is capable to do so. The only problem is to achieve their goals with minimal loses. And how long Ukraine will stand without direct NATO support?

Under direct involvement I mean NATO troops on the ground.

I think that not. Technically isn't capable. Without additional draft of reservists, reshuffle of the command, real reform of the army with regard of supply, training, logistics etc. It can't be achieved overnight or even in several months.

I am more inclined to think now that expected Russian spring offensive will be just a fantasy.

Not too long, obviously.

 

[AZrailwhale]

1. It depends on your (or Russian) understanding of the term 'direct involvement'.
2. Technically Russia is capable to do so. The only problem is to achieve their goals with minimal loses. And how long Ukraine will stand without direct NATO support?

The Russians are already way, way past minimal losses.

 

[Mushroom]

It depends on your (or Russian) understanding of the term 'direct involvement'.

Anything other than providing equipment. Anything more than a small number of individuals as observers is involvement.

Even individuals as advisors and not observers is involvement. And military observers largely ended over a century ago, so I can't see any NATO nation doing that.

 

[DudleySmith]

Putin's farce has backfired on him in several ways if not others. For one it has several countries now reaching out for NATO membership, so his intimidation tactics have failed on that front. I can list several others when I get time. He's too used to bullying as a foreign policy tactic, and it has bit him on the ass. His only Ally worth mentioning is Red China, and they aren't reliable and in fact would love to nip off a big chunk of territory when they can get away with it. They have almost started WW III against each other two or three times since the end of WW II.

 

[Silver Cat]

Anything other than providing equipment. Anything more than a small number of individuals as observers is involvement.

Even individuals as advisors and not observers is involvement. And military observers largely ended over a century ago, so I can't see any NATO nation doing that.

You may think so. But the Russians may think different. They may consider NATO's facilitation as the participation and raise the bets.

 

[Silver Cat]

The Russians are already way, way past minimal losses.

It depends of your (and more important - their) understanding of the term 'minimal loses'. Their losses are definitely way lower than 20-40 million of people.

 

[Mushroom]

They may consider NATO's facilitation as the participation and raise the bets.

Which would prove them to be extreme hypocrites. As one of the main reasons they did not collapse in WWII was because of US equipment. The US started sending them goods on an IOU even before it got dragged into the war.

As well as arrangements they had with North Korea and North Vietnam.

They are not children, and they know how the international game of realpolitik is played.