ANALYSIS | Why doesn’t the UN do more to stop what is happening in Ukraine?

(CNN) — Seeing the brutal images of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many people around the world are wondering: why isn’t the United Nations doing more to stop the war? Among them, the President of Ukraine himself, Volodymyr Zelensky. “You must act immediately,” Zelensky implored the UN Security Council during a live-streamed speech to its members on April 6. He begged them to do something to stop the war in his country, directly criticizing the inaction of the Security Council. And he named the elephant in the room: Russia, one of the Council’s five permanent members, whose status gives it the ability to veto any action it disagrees with. “We are dealing with a state that turns the right of veto in the UN Security Council into a right to die,” Zelensky said. It was a strong message urging the council to reform, and if that doesn’t work, he said, “the next option would be to disband completely. And I know you can admit that if there’s nothing you can do but talk.” Many people who have watched the UN for years agree that the UN Security Council seems powerless right now, with the world watching. The Security Council was designed in a different era, after World War II, with a membership and veto system that has ultimately restricted its effectiveness in dealing with this global conflict. Other parts of the UN have responded more effectively to the humanitarian and refugee crises that war has created. Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who served under Republican presidents including George W. Bush and Donald Trump, agreed with Zelensky’s assessment. “I thought he was absolutely right,” Bolton told CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger. “And I thought one more convert to understand what is wrong with the United Nations. Its political institutions are fundamentally broken.” Bolton has never been a big fan of the UN. He is famous for saying, in 1994, that if the UN Secretariat building in New York “lost 10 floors, it wouldn’t change a thing.” There have been many moments of deadlock before in the Security Council when the great powers disagree. But this moment has attracted a great deal of attention globally. “This is the biggest crisis to hit the UN since the end of the Cold War,” said Richard Gowan, UN director for the International Crisis Group. “It is possible that this marks the beginning of a kind of fundamental rupture between the great powers that will make it much more difficult for UN diplomacy to move forward.” The system was designed this way: to prevent global conflicts but also to reward the biggest winners of World War II, according to Gowan. The key veto power When the United Nations charter was signed in 1945, the Security Council was established with five permanent members and six non-permanent members. The permanent members (the US, UK, France, the Soviet Union, and the ROC) were given the power to veto any resolution they opposed. “It was Franklin Roosevelt who wanted to establish an organization that would watch over the world after the defeat of Nazi Germany,” Gowan said. “But the only way he could get Russia and other powers to agree to that deal was if they had the ability to block any action against themselves.” The late leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, insisted on that power as a way for the state to protect itself. Today, the Security Council has 15 members, but the five permanent members remain the same, with Russia taking the seat of the former Soviet Union and China taking the seat of the Republic of China. And the veto hasn’t changed either. “What we are seeing is that when there is a fundamental disagreement between the permanent members, nothing happens,” Bolton said. The UN charter also makes it impossible to do another thing that Zelensky suggested: remove Russia from the Security Council, because the country can veto that too. Over the years, countries and diplomats have suggested reforming the council by adding more permanent members to better reflect contemporary geopolitical realities, or even trying to remove veto power. But no country wants to dilute its power. “I’m being honest with you, I don’t think anybody wants to give up their veto,” former US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson, who served under former Democratic President Bill Clinton, told Borger. Richardson points out that the United States has used the veto to protect its own interests, and may need to do so again. “It helped us in the war in Iraq. It helped us in Bosnia. It helped us in the conflicts in Africa,” he said. “So no country that is a permanent member wants to give up their veto. And I would be against the United States giving up its veto right now, just so we can take action on another issue.” In theory, the Security Council “could impose even broader global economic sanctions on Moscow than we have already seen. It could technically authorize military action to push back Russian forces in Ukraine,” according to Gowan. But with Russia and probably China willing to veto any action taken against the war, the Security Council is deadlocked. A massive world organization Russia is left out of the UN Human Rights Council 4:35The UN is bigger than just the Security Council, and other areas of the body, which has six main organs, have been more active since Russia invaded Ukraine . “The UN is there to publicly air the tragedies of the world. Like the refugee crisis in Ukraine, like potential war crimes, like so many other human costs that are taking place,” Richardson said. “At the same time, the UN is providing food. The UN is providing assistance to the refugees.” The UN General Assembly has twice condemned Russia for the war in Ukraine; those resolutions are not binding but carry symbolic weight. Russia was also suspended from the Human Rights Council, which requires a two-thirds vote. But Bolton said the math behind that vote shows Russia has significant support around the world; the result of the vote was 93 in favour, 24 against and 58 abstentions. The remaining 18 member states were not included in that result. “So here’s the real headline… A majority of the members of the United Nations did not vote to expel Russia,” he told Borger. The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, probably expected this kind of condemnation, but what really matters to him is the status and power that being in the Security Council gives Russia. “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow held on to her seat on the Security Council essentially as proof that she was still a great power,” said Gowan of the International Crisis Group. “Now, in the real world… Russia is not that important. It is China and the US that are the dominant players, but in the Security Council, the Russians are equal to the US. And they are very, very proud of it.” have that status. And Richardson knows firsthand from his time at the UN in the 1990s that Russia knows how to game the system. “When I became the US ambassador to the UN, Lavrov, the foreign minister, had been there for 10 years. So he was very skilled,” Richardson said. “He knew how to maneuver in the Security Council. He was very formidable. And now we have Russia, very well informed about UN operations, so that’s one advantage they have.” And so the Security Council could only watch as Russia invaded Ukraine. And in a rare split-screen moment, Russia held the rotating presidency of the Security Council and even chaired the meeting when the invasion began and diplomacy failed. Bolton sees no way to change the system. “Unless the unicorns break free and sweetness and light prevail, where there are disagreements among the five (permanent), there will be no action,” he said.