[ping.chen]

I raised this question when I read the news saying, Syrian Truce solution proposal has been blocked by Russian and China as usual, which means this endless war is still one the way.

But if we go back to think about UN, which on earth it represents? Justice, humanity, democratic, freedom, none of them I'm afraid.

While Authoritarian nations Russia, China, North Korea are full members, the developed democratic Taiwan is excluded. Tell me the spirit of this club, just the measure of power?

It's time to dismiss this obsolete and useless union, never wasting money on that.

[Zagadka]

We certainly need some aspects of it, like UNESCO and policing, but the full thing is bulky and ineffective, since it is completely ineffective because of the 5 veto powers. As far as aid projects go, it is horribly ineffective and uses the wrong procedures.

[fuser]

UN? Probably.

Security Council? Absolutely Not.

[ping.chen]

UN? Probably.

Security Council? Absolutely Not.

A feasible solution I think is to expand NATO as an alternative, encouraging allies like Australia, Japan, Taiwan to join.

[Zagadka]

NATO is even worse than the UN. Also, I don't think you know what "NATO" means. Also, we have SEATO that could be expanded.

NATO needs to be scrapped, especially if you care about good relations with Russia.

[foxdemon]

NATO is even worse than the UN. Also, I don't think you know what "NATO" means. Also, we have SEATO that could be expanded.

NATO needs to be scrapped, especially if you care about good relations with Russia.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

SEATO! Really! That reminds me of the scene in Star Wars when Ben Kenobi watches R2D2's message: "Obi-wan. That's a name I've not heard in a long time".

[Zagadka]

So why would NATO apply to Australia?

Anyway, it is still dumb and no longer necessary. In fact, it is dangerous. WWI started because of a chain reaction of defense treaties causing nations to fall like dominoes into a conflict they had no interest in. The concept of expanding NATO is dangerous.

[Igor Antunov]

A global forum for open discussion at the highest level is a good thing, but it should probably be curtailed in other areas. The concept of 'international law' is laughable, peacekeeping forces are useless, and the security council needs to be disbanded. If great powers wish to back a proxy or conduct peacekeeping missions they will do it on their own regardless, no need for silly voting games that mean nothing.

It should also be moved out of the US to a smaller, neutral country.

As for NATO, it exists purely to antagonize Russia, and places the entirety of Europe and North America in existential danger. There is no reason why Russia should not have cordial relations with Germany, Poland, all of Western Europe etc. It is only the US through its vehicle NATO that stands in the way.

[Zagadka]

peacekeeping forces are useless

Untrue. They are very good at evacuating white people from third world genocides.

[foxdemon]

So why would NATO apply to Australia?

It doesn't. ANZUS applies to Australia.

We are working on military cooperation with the Europeans. See the last few paragraphs.

I wonder how helpful they would be, though. If China is the adversary, the Europeans would be a liability. As we discovered with Fuji, and the Americans have recently discovered with the Philipines and Malaysia, attempting to impose human rights or anti-corruption principles on regional leaders will backfire. They can just swap sides as China asks no questions about ethics.


But the French at least we must work with and we need to build a steady alliance with them. France has possessions in both the Indian and Pacific Oceans so we share a common interest in regional defence.

Anyway, it is still dumb and no longer necessary. In fact, it is dangerous. WWI started because of a chain reaction of defense treaties causing nations to fall like dominoes into a conflict they had no interest in. The concept of expanding NATO is dangerous.

This is true. We have been exploring alliances with Japan and India but it is the very reason you present that has slowed down progress here. Australian strategists are wary of getting locked into that sort of alliance. Even ANZUS isn't as strict in conditions as NATO.

On topic, the UN is of some utility simply because it is an accepted institution that provides a forum for nations to talk and play politics. There is a need for global forums. Also it is a useful platform for various international programs.

[Zagadka]

It doesn't. ANZUS applies to Australia.

I wasn't making the point that it was, I was responding to ping.chen

While I'm not a fan of NATO and skeptical of the UN, I am a firm believer in the ICC. Unfortunately, there is literally no way to enforce those trials without invading scores of countries to capture leaders. So at this point, I'd put it on the back burner and focus on achievable political practices.

[ping.chen]

NATO is even worse than the UN. Also, I don't think you know what "NATO" means. Also, we have SEATO that could be expanded.

NATO needs to be scrapped, especially if you care about good relations with Russia.

NATO is certainly not perfect, but why do you think SEATO is better?

So why would NATO apply to Australia?

Anyway, it is still dumb and no longer necessary. In fact, it is dangerous. WWI started because of a chain reaction of defense treaties causing nations to fall like dominoes into a conflict they had no interest in. The concept of expanding NATO is dangerous.

NATO can be generally interpreted as western allies, and I haven't seen any big problem with Australia if being the member.

A global forum for open discussion at the highest level is a good thing, but it should probably be curtailed in other areas. The concept of 'international law' is laughable, peacekeeping forces are useless, and the security council needs to be disbanded. If great powers wish to back a proxy or conduct peacekeeping missions they will do it on their own regardless, no need for silly voting games that mean nothing.

It should also be moved out of the US to a smaller, neutral country.

As for NATO, it exists purely to antagonize Russia, and places the entirety of Europe and North America in existential danger. There is no reason why Russia should not have cordial relations with Germany, Poland, all of Western Europe etc. It is only the US through its vehicle NATO that stands in the way.

You think it's better that Russia has more allies in Europe?

It doesn't. ANZUS applies to Australia.

We are working on military cooperation with the Europeans. See the last few paragraphs.

I wonder how helpful they would be, though. If China is the adversary, the Europeans would be a liability. As we discovered with Fuji, and the Americans have recently discovered with the Philipines and Malaysia, attempting to impose human rights or anti-corruption principles on regional leaders will backfire. They can just swap sides as China asks no questions about ethics.


But the French at least we must work with and we need to build a steady alliance with them. France has possessions in both the Indian and Pacific Oceans so we share a common interest in regional defence.



This is true. We have been exploring alliances with Japan and India but it is the very reason you present that has slowed down progress here. Australian strategists are wary of getting locked into that sort of alliance. Even ANZUS isn't as strict in conditions as NATO.

On topic, the UN is of some utility simply because it is an accepted institution that provides a forum for nations to talk and play politics. There is a need for global forums. Also it is a useful platform for various international programs.

<<There is a need for global forums. Also it is a useful platform for various international programs.>>
Yes we need a international platform, but not the one with unfair voting system and even don't encourage democratic and human rights in practice.

[Zag Note: Instead of making several posts in a row, please combine them into one post and use the quote function to direct replies]

[Zagadka]

NATO is certainly not perfect, but why do you think SEATO is better?

I don't. But I think that the concept of expanding NATO to encompass SEATO is ridiculous beyond the already ridiculous existence of NATO.

[ping.chen]

I don't. But I think that the concept of expanding NATO to encompass SEATO is ridiculous beyond the already ridiculous existence of NATO.

Don't you know SEATO dissolved long ago?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast ... ganization

[Zagadka]

Don't you know SEATO dissolved long ago?

Obviously not. I do now, though.