• kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn’t be necessary

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.

      You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you’re right there), we’re talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn’t there. Or I didn’t intend, at least. In no way am I trying to minimise Putin’s evil behaviour. The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn’t be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I’m not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.