The United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 with the goal of preventing war, fostering diplomacy, and promoting global cooperation, stands as a cornerstone of the international order. Yet, in light of ongoing crises such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict, the question arises: Does the UN fail in its most basic mandate when it cannot prevent or halt major wars?
These two high-stakes conflicts highlight the complex and often contradictory role the UN plays in international peacekeeping, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid. The UN is arguably the world’s most influential institution for maintaining international order, but its inability to directly control or prevent wars—especially in cases where powerful member states hold opposing interests—calls into question the organization’s effectiveness, relevance, and future.
The UN’s Core Mandate: Peace and Security
At its core, the UN was designed to prevent the very type of conflicts that have defined much of its post-World War II existence. The UN Charter, which enshrines its mission, stresses the need for diplomacy, conflict prevention, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The Security Council, the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, can authorize military intervention, impose sanctions, or send peacekeepers to mitigate conflict.
However, for all its institutional structure and legal framework, the UN’s capacity to act in times of crisis is limited by the veto power of its five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This system of checks and balances was designed to ensure that no single power could dominate the UN, but it has also created a scenario in which powerful nations, often with competing interests, can block action on issues where they hold conflicting views.
This is precisely where the UN’s influence falters when facing crises like Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. In both cases, the Security Council’s authority to act decisively has been undermined by vetoes from member states with vested interests in the outcomes of these conflicts.
Russia-Ukraine War: A Case of Stalemate
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine presents perhaps the most glaring example of the UN’s limitations. Despite global condemnation of Russia's actions, the UN has been largely sidelined in its capacity to intervene militarily or enforce meaningful sanctions. Why? Because Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has the ability to veto any resolution that would call for direct action against it. This veto power has effectively paralyzed the Security Council from taking decisive steps to end the conflict or impose binding measures on Russia.
Instead, the UN has focused on humanitarian aid, providing support to millions of Ukrainian refugees and displaced people, and facilitating diplomatic dialogue through its General Assembly. While these efforts are critical and life-saving, they are far from the sweeping actions needed to bring about peace. The UN has acted as a diplomatic forum, rather than a force for peace.
The UN’s position as a neutral body is further complicated by the competing interests of member states. NATO countries, led by the United States, have been quick to support Ukraine through arms shipments and economic sanctions against Russia. Meanwhile, Russia’s allies, including China, have maintained a stance of caution, avoiding direct confrontation with Moscow. The result is a divided international community that stymies any potential for UN intervention in the conflict.
Israel-Palestine Conflict: The Veto That Prevents Progress
The Israel-Palestine conflict, one of the longest-running disputes in modern history, also highlights the UN’s inability to bring lasting peace to the region. Although the UN has passed numerous resolutions calling for a two-state solution, a cessation of hostilities, and an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories, its actions have been largely ineffective in pressuring Israel or ensuring compliance with international law.
This failure is largely attributed to the United States’ veto power in the Security Council, where it has frequently blocked resolutions that criticize Israel or seek to hold it accountable for its actions in Gaza and the West Bank. As a result, many resolutions that might have imposed sanctions or demanded specific actions—such as a halt to Israeli settlement expansion—have been vetoed, rendering them ineffective.
At the same time, the UN continues to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians through agencies such as UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), and through its involvement in international diplomacy, it has facilitated dialogue between the parties involved. However, without the backing of strong resolutions or enforcement mechanisms, the UN’s influence in shaping the peace process remains marginal, particularly in the face of ongoing Israeli military operations in Gaza and the broader dynamics of regional geopolitics.
The Paradox of the UN: Humanitarian Efforts vs. Political Impotence
While the UN has become synonymous with humanitarian aid, its role as a peacekeeper and conflict resolver has been deeply compromised by political deadlock. In both the Ukraine and Israel-Palestine crises, the UN has been able to provide life-saving assistance—food, medical care, shelter—but it has been powerless to stop the violence or facilitate a durable peace.
Take the example of the UN’s role in Ukraine: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been active in providing support for displaced persons, and the World Food Program (WFP) has worked to provide nutrition to those caught in the conflict. Similarly, in Palestine, UNRWA continues to provide education, healthcare, and emergency aid to Palestinian refugees. These agencies play an essential role in alleviating human suffering, but they cannot address the root causes of conflict, nor can they enforce political resolutions.
This is where the inherent contradiction in the UN’s structure becomes clear. The organization is built to prevent war and foster international peace, yet it is unable to do so when the political will of its most powerful members is not aligned. In many cases, the UN’s efforts are hampered by the fact that the parties to the conflict—Russia in Ukraine, Israel in Palestine—are either members of the Security Council or have strong allies who can prevent meaningful intervention.
Does This Mean the UN Is Failing?
It is tempting to argue that the UN is failing in its mission when it cannot halt wars like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or address the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Palestine. However, it’s important to recognize that the UN still serves critical functions in diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and global norm-setting. While its ability to stop war is limited by the veto system and the geopolitical realities of the post-Cold War world, the UN continues to provide a platform for negotiation, humanitarian support, and international law.
For example, in Ukraine, the UN’s diplomatic efforts, while insufficient in halting the war, have brought together countries to condemn Russia’s actions and seek ways to mitigate the humanitarian toll. In Palestine, despite the political impasse, the UN remains a powerful advocate for Palestinian rights in international forums, and its agencies provide vital assistance to those displaced by violence.
Ultimately, the UN's limitations in these specific conflicts do raise important questions about its relevance in the 21st century. Is it still fit for purpose in a world where great power rivalry often undermines collective action? Should the UN’s structure be reformed to better reflect the realities of modern geopolitics? These questions will continue to be debated, but one thing remains clear: The UN may not be able to prevent or end wars, but its role as a humanitarian and diplomatic body remains indispensable in mitigating the worst effects of global conflict.
A Call for Reform and Action
The United Nations is far from perfect. Its inability to prevent or intervene in some of the world’s most pressing conflicts, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine dispute, highlights the challenges it faces in an increasingly polarized world. Yet, despite its limitations, the UN continues to serve as a platform for diplomacy, a provider of humanitarian aid, and a symbol of global cooperation.
As we move forward, the need for reform is apparent. The structure of the UN, particularly the veto system in the Security Council, needs to be reconsidered if the organization is to be more effective in addressing modern geopolitical challenges. Without such reform, the UN risks becoming a bystander in global conflicts—capable of alleviating some suffering, but largely impotent in stopping the violence that causes it. Whether the UN can evolve into a more effective peacekeeping and conflict-resolution body will determine its continued relevance in the future of international relations.