The United States needs an organization, dead or alive

US President Joseph Biden, who devoted the lion's share of his speech to the UN General Assembly to condemning Russia, for obvious reasons - the need to respond to the powerful speech of V.V.

Putin on the morning of September 21, 2022 - was forced to push into the deep information shadow the main idea with which he wanted to take the UN rostrum.

It was neatly but consistently pushed by his entourage: reforming the UN, and above all the Security Council of the organization, in such a way as to deprive Russia not only of the right of veto, but also of any influence in general in this until recently considered the most important international institution.

Although, of course, the Russian right to veto Washington's decisions was so painful that the owner of the White House could not ignore it, saying that it could be used only in the most extreme cases.

Needless to say, the UN is in a deep crisis, obvious to all.

But it did not become clear until February 2022.

The last bell sounded for the UN in August 2008, when the UN, headed by the then Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, completely abstained from participating in the settlement of the globally significant political crisis that followed the attack by M. Saakashvili's regime on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

After that, the UN, as an instrument for maintaining global peace, was not only dead, but definitely not alive anymore.

But does the US really have a plan to reform the UN?

Yes and no.

If you look at it, then the proposals for reforming the UN, indicated by the United States, are of a momentary nature.

As it happened, for example, when the United States thwarted the adoption of the final resolution of the conference to review the operation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons only because they tried to introduce anti-Russian attacks there.

Nuclear nonproliferation and the future of the IAEA did not interest Washington much.

If you read even the actual American ideas of reform, it becomes obvious that no elaboration was carried out.

And all the ideas come down to putting additional political pressure on Russia, and if it is possible to narrow Russian participation in the institutions and mechanisms of the UN, to turn the organization (as, by the way, happened with a number of its specialized agencies) into another formally globally legitimate platform to prolong the existence of the American-centric world.

In fact, it is an instrument of its policy.

This approach was fully manifested in the US proposals to reform the UN Security Council.

There is no doubt that the idea to expand the representation of countries, including the permanent members of the Security Council, has fully matured.

The concept of R.T.

Erdogan about "the world is more than five", directly hinting at the need to review the special status of members of the UN Security Council, who have the right to veto decisions binding on the entire world community, did not appear by chance.

The balance of power that was supposed to be maintained by the Security Council (call it the "five arbitrators" or "five policemen" - as you like) was destroyed back in 1991.

And since then, the geopolitical, and even more so the geo-economic balance of power has changed significantly.

So Erdogan simply publicly voiced what other leaders were saying behind the scenes.

Let's now look at the list of countries that the United States is trying to propose as candidates for permanent membership in the UN Security Council.

Formally, there is a fairly wide range of countries, but

are recurring among them .

In the last five years, 

.

But if you look at this list, it is easy to see that a significant part of the countries proposed in the UN Security Council as permanent members with the right of veto are not sovereign states, moreover, under American occupation (Germany, Japan, South Korea).

Poland is the most important ally of the United States, the main support in the confrontation with Russia in Europe.

India is courted by the United States in order to pit it against China.

Well, Australia is the supporting resource and logistics base of the new American geopolitical project AUKUS.

In other words, the US proposals are merely a reflection of current US foreign policy priorities.

We emphasize: current, and not a certain strategic line aimed at adapting the UN to the new world order.

Because if Washington were really interested in updating the UN, then the United States would launch not an unparalleled aggressiveness propaganda campaign, but a broad discussion on the goals of reform, criteria, etc. But then some details unpleasant for Washington will become clear.

The issue of criteria for expanding the UN Security Council is central.

should lose its seat in the Security Council 

, and not only 

, but also 

, 

 and 

should gain it .

If in terms of total military-economic power, then you should look at Turkey

and 

 (and they will need to be taken at the same time), India, Brazil and Japan, if, of course, it ever ceases to be an occupied country and restores national sovereignty.

Democracy as a criterion?

No problem!

But who will determine the degree of democracy of this or that regime?

Again the United States, to which there are more and more questions regarding the observance of democratic rights and freedoms.

Washington has no answer to all this.

And there is only rhetoric turning into irresponsible propaganda.

Another thing is also interesting: among the countries to which the United States has recently shown the "carrot" of a new status in the UN, in particular a seat in the Security Council, there are countries that have gained geopolitical and geo-economic weight in recent years.

But these countries, for all the specifics of their foreign policy, gravitate towards the “coalition of common sense” that recently held the most important summit in the SCO format.

So the promise to revise the structure and status of the members of the Security Council is also a certain element of bargaining over the conditions for going over to the side of the “coalition of democracies”.

However, one gets the impression that the United States does not count on a serious attitude to its proposals.

How else can one explain the now designated, now withdrawn calls to deprive Russia of the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council?

The United States is well aware that this is legally impossible to do until our state legally ceases to exist.

The United States cannot fail to understand that attempts to squeeze Russia out of the UN Security Council on an impromptu basis cannot be successful.

On the contrary, they pre-form Moscow's negative attitude towards any proposals to reform the UN.

So, if you look at it, the US is not interested in increasing the effectiveness of the UN and reforming it.

They are quite satisfied with the current state of this structure - neither alive nor dead, while occupying a place in the space of world politics.

By controlling the UN secretariat, the US can achieve a lot anyway.

And the current US administration will be PR on the topic of the UN, which, however, it has been doing for quite a long time.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.