Organisation of the United Nations
Can the UN survive without USA?

Since the end of World War Two, it is extremely difficult to conceive a world without the Organisation of the United Nations, but if projects are approved in the United States and the United States leave the UN, then such a world would become a reality. During the history of the United States several attempts have been made to leave the UN but not enough UN representatives in the US Senate and in the US House of Representatives supported such idea.

Universalism, labeled today as Isolationism, was very much the tone right at the beginning the United States. It is documented that none other than General George Washington, later President George Washington, declared that the United States should steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. Those that support the idea of leaving the UN say that the UN gives non democratic and democratic countries the same weight at the time of making decisions that could be seen as an attempt to exert foreign control of the United States.

My reading is that the Organisation of the United Nations is very much a treaty between US, UK, France, the Soviet Union and China - having the Russian Federation inherited the seat of the now defunct Soviet Union - that ensured the existence of the Security Council. If one of the main signatories of such treaty decides to leave the Security Council then the treaty itself will be null and void as there are no mechanisms in place to deal with such eventuality and also because all pieces of legislation issued by the UN and internationally agreed would de facto become null and void. Several other organisations that operate under the umbrella of the UN would themselves cease to exist. 

To a vast and critically important package of international legislation, we will have to add the enormous costs of running such an organisation coupled with the burden created by the fact that one of the main players, if not the main player, will no longer be part of the UN.

The concept Uniteralism is not new. It dates back to the beginning of the United States. If the same is applied to NATO then NATO should cease to exist.

We are entering a new world in which everything goes. The words "Sauve qui peut" come to mind. No international regulations, no international rules. No more territorial waters and no more international waters, as the absence of internationally agreed limits will make it impossible to determine what are territorial waters and what are international waters.

In spite of all the difficulties the UN encounters, it is undeniable that it has created crucially important points of reference for all countries. Without those points of reference we go back to survival of the fittest, a process that would involve endless conflicts across the world. No lasting national borders.

This might have something to do with American reluctance to follow warmongering politicians

 

The Ursula von der Leyen, the David Lammys, or the Grüne Leader Annalena Baerbocks of the world, might want a Europe-wide war, once again, but understandably President Donald Trump and those who support him do not want yet another European War because they know what the USA lost in terms of human lives left on the battlefield.

So the US does not want the maniacs to run the asylum. The idiots do not understand either that in order to put an end to a conflict you need to talk to those seen as your adversaries, the parties in the conflict. All the warmongering European politicians have done is to make matters a lot worse. After hundreds of thousands went to the slaughter, they want that more people go the slaughter. Do not talk, they say. Keep the war going, they say. 

I have no way of knowing how the German electorate will vote on Sunday. I do hope that they vote for those who want to maintain rationality, for those who are against keeping to war going for, if the war keeps going, sooner than later we will have a European-wide War in Europe.

Keir Starmer´s idea about sending peacekeepers to Ukraine has not gone down well

 

Keir Starmer´s idea about sending troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers did not go down well, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz made an early exit from the gathering in France, saying that it was extremely premature to talk about sending troops anywhere before any peace settlement had been agreed.

But this was not all, for obvious reasons, Germany does not want to send troops anywhere in Europe when there is even the slightest possibility of a conflict of major proportions. Given the perception that the Russian Federation might send a big number of troops via Belarus, that could threaten Polish borders and seize Kiev in no time, Poland does not think either that this could be a good idea. Spain under General Franco did not get involved in World War Two. There is no appetite whatsoever for any involvement. 

For the moment and in the foreseeable future, there will be no EU participation in any negotiation. USA and the Russian Federation are the only two players involved and statements made by Volodomir Zelensky that no peace agreement would be possible without Ukraine´s participation and calls for the formation of an EU Army have little weight. In the end, if Ukraine were to reject a settlement agreed by the USA and the Russian Federation, USA could unilaterally decide to cease military and financial support. At this point in time, many EU countries that happen to be members of NATO might be thinking about the possibility of a reduction of American military presence in Europe.  

While Rachel Reeves struggles to keep the boat afloat, Keir Starmer is keeping his eyes off the ball

 

The British economy is heading towards the rocks, Rachel Reeves is seeing a financial cushion evaporating, making the three bad options available as a threat.

Regardless of the what the Bank of England does or does not do, investors might have different ideas. Would you put your monies on the Titanic?

So what next? More taxes, more borrowing or more cuts of public services or a combination of the three.

This at a time when the Prime Minister might be talking about forcefully increasing expenditure in defense. Well, if the theoretical conflict is imminent, time ran out a long time ago. What is the reality of British military strength? A few nuclear bombs that Britain cannot use for fear of retaliation against all British cities. When it comes to conventional warfare, Britain is absolutely naked.  

US: NATO countries that send troops to Ukraine will not be protected by Article 5

For decades, the USA has been used and abused bz countries that have consistently cut down defense expenditure, expecting American soldiers to protect them, instead of building up their own defense capabilities. The US Secretary of Defense made it clear that countries will no longer be expected to invest 2 per cent but 5 per cent of their national budgets, to beef up their own military industries and Armed Forces.

With regards to Ukraine, he told NATO members and politicians that the way forward is peace with realism. Ukraine´s previous borders will not be restored and territorial concessions will have to be made. Ukraine will not be a NATO Member and any force, including European Forces and Non European Forces will not be protected by Article 5 if they enter Ukraine.

USA must give prioritz to the defense of its own borders and other threats in the Asia Pacific Region.

Link to talk about the issues Sunday, 16 February, 2025 from 2000 to 2200 GMT

Subjects to be treated on Sunday 16 February 2025 on Meetup via Zoom. Link bellow.

US NATO Forum