There are, according to Russia, two kinds of vetos it is wielding. The first is in the Security Council, allegedly made absolute in the Charter. The second is de facto veto of the nuclear bomb, which it believes it can trigger at will. But in reality neither veto is absolute/2
2/ the first is not absolute because there are two ways around the veto - the #UnitedForPeace resolution, as happened in the Korean War and again this past week, and the little known #Article27/3 which provides that a party to a dispute must abstain when Ch VI is invoked. /3
3/Both these approaches require political and military will, which was very much present in the Korean conflict. The de facto veto of the unilateral use of the nuclear trigger is what appears to be dominant in current conflict. But should Putin’s “red lines” be the last word/4
4/This is now the core issue. The UNGA resolution clearly outlines the breaches of the Charter and the threats to peace. The sanctions and military support to Ukraine are response so far. But if our bottom line is that #PutinsWar must not be lost, and that Ukraine’s battle/5
5 is ours as well, further steps must, by definition be possible. If a country can defy human rights, the rule of law, and destroy human life and snuff out a nation state with impunity because it thinks it has the vetos to protect it, what does this say about us ?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
