When the United Nations Security Council convened for an emergency meeting on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it could only demonstrate its impotence.
The Kenyan ambassador put it in a nutshell: Russia is behaving like the colonial imperialists of yore and violating the UN Charter – multilateralism is on its deathbed.
In fact, while Russia's war is giving NATO new meaning and the EU is finding an unusual ability to act, it is the toughest test for multilateral cooperation in international organizations since the end of the Cold War.
It came as no surprise that the UN Security Council would remain speechless and toothless because of the Russian veto.
Rather, how clearly the UN General Assembly subsequently condemned the Russian invasion.
Only four dictatorships held the rod of Russia.
A devastating verdict - but without consequences because it has no binding effect.
Over the past decade, the Security Council has become more and more the victim of great power rivalries.
In its heyday, the five permanent members of the Security Council had repeatedly come together to resolve conflicts – from Afghanistan to Lebanon to Yemen.
He fielded dozens of peacekeeping operations.
The decision of the Security Council in 2011 to authorize military force against troops of the Libyan dictator Gaddafi - with Russian toleration - became a watershed.
The Russian decision came when Medvedev was President.
After the fall of Gaddafi, Putin seemed to have vowed never to allow a "regime change" again.
This is how Syria fell victim to the Russian (and Chinese) blockade policy.
The Security Council was doomed to be a bystander as Assad waged war against his own people and unleashed a gigantic humanitarian catastrophe.
A tragedy for the Syrian people, but also a disaster for the reputation of the United Nations.
The future prospects of the UN Security Council to make decisive contributions to peace and security in the world after the Russian war of aggression are bleak.
Burning trouble spots in Libya, Mali and the Central African Republic will also be fueled by Russian-American antagonism.
This directly affects German foreign and security policy engagement in the region.
Hardly any cooperation in the Security Council in the long term
Added to this is the growing American-Chinese rivalry, which is also reflected in international organizations.
For years, China has been pursuing an increasingly confident, at times aggressive, policy in the United Nations.
In the UN engagement in Africa in particular, it represents its own strategic interests.
Beijing is involved there on a large scale in UN peacekeeping operations – certainly not out of altruism.
When it comes to China's regional sphere of influence - North Korea or Myanmar - Beijing shows no willingness to compromise in the Security Council.
It is unlikely that China could abandon Russia in the Security Council after Putin's Ukraine war.
In short: for the foreseeable future, cooperation between the great powers in the Security Council will be kept to a minimum.
A reform of the top UN body is more unlikely than ever, and proposals to limit the permanent members' right of veto are academic dreams.