| I agree with all of this, however... Parties to the U.N. Charter need to do better. There is no way back to the stable world, such as it was. And not least of which is, we were wrong about it having been stable. This is too big a violation of the U.N. Charter to just set it aside and go back as if nothing happened. And that it happened, when the U.N. Charter system is designed expressly to prevent this from having happened, also shows there's a problem. Is it institutional? Or was it just wishful thinking that turned out to not be true? And now what? Because we need the U.N. Charter's institutions now more than ever. If it is really under threat, it means we're at even bigger risk of yet another world war, the very thing the U.N Charter system is intended to prevent. We now confront the very real possibility of the stability-instability paradox is true. As a result of Putin using nuclear weapons as a shield to permit him to commit atrocities with conventional weapons, which increases the risk of escalation to and including a nuclear exchange. That means there is a gap opening between conventional war and mutually assured destruction, a kind of limited nuclear exchange. The similar idea of having to crap so badly you think, "well maybe I'll just let a little bit out". Which is worse? The idea of a little bit of nuclear weapons exchange? Or giving up on principles and getting a nuclear war anyway? I prefer to stick to the principles, and be damned to hell for them than to just give up these principles to the likes of Putin. Kenya's Ambassador to the U.N. talking about Ukraine and the U.N. Charter system falling, just before the invasion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxZlaiuicYM |