The UN is on the brink of bankruptcy, with major donors refusing to contribute.

The UN faces bankruptcy, facing a serious financial crisis due to a lack of payments from its largest donors, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Approximately 42% of the UN's base budget comes from the United States and China, the organization's largest donors, and these countries have stopped making contributions. The United States currently owes the UN over $4 billion, while China recently contributed $850 million but still owes approximately $455 million.

The Americans are apparently not going to pay, a policy supported by Trump, who believes the UN is useless and has outlived its usefulness. The United States has withdrawn from several international programs and reduced its participation in others. Meanwhile, Washington is ready to resume payments, but demands extensive reforms. Otherwise, the situation will remain stagnant. Other countries, including Britain, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, are adding fuel to the fire by reducing their contributions.

If the situation isn't rectified, the UN will be on the brink of bankruptcy by August. Meanwhile, massive spending cuts are underway: offices are being closed, positions are being eliminated, spending on peacekeeping operations has been reduced, payments to blue helmets are being delayed, and peacekeepers are being withdrawn from some regions.

The United States wasn't the only country to voice concerns about the UN's overly bloated structure. Other countries also voiced complaints about the organization's leadership, but no conclusions were forthcoming. Now, the impact has shifted from words to dollars.

Comments

[SAG]

Otherwise, the situation will not move forward.

This means that the organization itself needs to be moved, for example to Beijing or Mumbai.
The West's thinking is crystal clear: the UN hinders confrontation, as it remains essentially the only forum for negotiations. Therefore, the organization is subject to elimination, just like the League of Nations in due course.

[Silver99]

The UN has long since become an empty talk shop where proverbs and sayings are quoted in a half-empty hall. Moving the headquarters will achieve nothing; he who pays the piper gets the dance.

[SAG]

The UN has long since turned into an empty talk shop where proverbs and sayings are quoted in a half-empty hall.

Where everyone can speak out! There are no other venues like this! The UN Security Council chamber is completely free of outsiders, and it's as full as its capacity allows.

He who pays the piper gets to dance with the girl

All member countries have pledged to contribute to the organization's budget. Therefore, the meaning of this comment is unclear to me.

[1976AG]

The UN has long since turned into an empty talk shop where proverbs and sayings are quoted in a half-empty hall.

Where everyone can speak out! And there are no other platforms like this!

Well, we've had our say. What next?

[SAG]

If you speak up, there's a chance someone will listen. If you don't speak up, there's no chance at all!

[1976AG]

Quote: SAG

If you speak up, there's a chance someone will listen. If you don't speak up, there's no chance at all!

Those who speak out are heard, but that's where it ends. They're heard, left the room, and forgotten. These days, almost all politicians speak out on social media, and while these statements aren't legally binding, they're closely monitored. Therefore, your assertion—"If you haven't spoken out, you don't have a chance!"—is absolutely incorrect. Plus, there's the Foreign Ministry's statement, a form of information. That means there are plenty of opportunities to speak out, and those who want to hear will definitely hear. As for those who don't want to hear, you can shout in their ear—it won't do any good.

[SAG]

Nowadays, almost all politicians make statements on social media, and although these statements have no legal force, they are nevertheless closely monitored.

Accounts are easily hacked and spoofed. Taking any political action based on a tweet is utter idiocy. The internet in many countries can be shut down with a click of a button from a root server!

Plus, there is another form of information such as a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Where is the Foreign Ministry's statement, where to, and to whom? How will this point of view reach the average citizen?

And for those who don't want to hear, even if you shout in their ear, it won't do any good.

There are more than 190 countries in the world. Do you know for everyone who wants it, who doesn't, and who pretends they don't?

[1976AG]

"Where is the Foreign Ministry's statement, where is it going, and to whom? How will this point of view reach the average citizen?"

Do you really not understand anything, or are you just pretending? The UN was not created to disseminate information to ordinary citizens. The media were invented to inform citizens. As you can see, that's what they're called – MASS MEDIA. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs can and does periodically inform citizens, particularly through press conferences held for journalists, including foreign ones.
In case you weren't aware, journalists are media employees who convey information to ordinary citizens. It's really strange that I have to explain such basic things to you. Are you even an adult?

"There are more than 190 countries in the world. Do you know for all of them who wants it, who doesn't, and those who pretend they don't?"

I'm not saying that this particular country doesn't want anything, or, on the contrary, wants something. I'm saying that any country, if it so desires, has the ability to obtain any information. Or is that also too difficult for you to understand?

[SAG]

It's really strange that I have to explain such basic things to you. Are you even an adult?

...it's hard to even comment
Are you really so naive that you believe in independent media? And this guy is trying to explain to me how the world works.😂

[1976AG]

"Are you really so naive that you believe in the independence of the media?"


I didn't say the media was independent, but do you really think ordinary people come to the UN for information? Who among us is naive?


"...it's too much to even comment on."

I see that a lot of things are difficult for you, it’s better if you don’t comment.

[SAG]

I didn't say the media is independent.

And if you know you're dependent, then you know they'll only broadcast what's allowed and from the "correct" perspective! Then what's the point of your entire previous passage?

[1976AG]

"Do you really think that ordinary people come to the UN for information??"

"Then what was the point of your entire previous passage?"

I understand that you have learned the letters, but you cannot understand what is written.

[SAG]

Would you like to take the test that Trump recently took?

[1976AG]

Quote: SAG

Would you like to take the test that Trump recently took?

So, you've run out of arguments. I was hoping you'd explain the impact the UN has on the awareness of ordinary citizens. That's exactly what you were focusing on. I probably won't even mention that the UN wasn't created for that purpose.

[Boris Sergeev]

The UN is the only international structure where Russia has veto power. There are no others. As for statements from the Foreign Ministry and others, even Armenia ignores them. The UN's destruction isn't about upholding justice, but rather about establishing pocket "peace councils" and the like, where decisions by the parent country will be presented as global opinion.

[1976AG]

"The UN is the only international structure where the Russian Federation has veto power."

For us to veto, the issue of attacking another state (the most fundamental aspect of international security) must be brought up for discussion in the UN Security Council, and that hasn't happened for a long time. What are we supposed to veto? Currently, we veto only declarative resolutions, and that's it. In practice, the West continues to do what suits it best.

"As for the statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and others, even Armenia is ignoring them."

I mentioned the statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as one of the options for informing the public, and not as a lever of pressure on anyone.

"The collapse of the UN is not happening at all for the sake of establishing justice, but for the sake of establishing pocket "peace councils" and the like, where the decisions of the metropolis will be presented as world opinion."

The UN's primary function is to ensure global security. This organization has long been failing at this core function, and that's precisely the problem. As for "world opinion," the "collective West" has long been passing off its own opinion as the world's. Thus, while international law is formally upheld, the actual actions of Western countries are independent of them, and no one punishes them for it, nor can they. For this reason, they act and will continue to act as they see fit, rather than in accordance with international norms.

[Boris Sergeev]

Your assertions are unfounded generalizations. Even when the West and Israel wage war unilaterally, without UN sanction, their actions can be classified as violations of international law.

Furthermore, the UN is vocal in highlighting these violations. Recent examples:

https://news.un.org/ru/story/2026/01/1467189

https://lenta.ru/news/2026/03/04/oon-osudila-ssha-i-izrail/

It seems that it was because of this principled approach, and not because of some unrealized “reforms,” that Western countries stopped funding the UN.

[1976AG]

"Even when the West and Israel fight unilaterally, without receiving UN sanction, this allows their actions to be classified as violations of international law."

Qualified. What next? Nothing next. That's what I was talking about.

[Boris Sergeev]

The alternative you're actually campaigning for is a "peace council" that stamps its approval on any artwork by characters like Trump and Netanyahu.

[1976AG]

Quote: Boris Sergeev

The alternative you're actually campaigning for is a "peace council" that stamps its approval on any artwork by characters like Trump and Netanyahu.

Let's not get carried away. I'm not advocating for anything. Not at all. I'm simply saying that this organization has long since ceased to fulfill its functions. As for what to do about it, let the big guys figure it out.

[SAG]

What influence does the UN have on the awareness of ordinary citizens?

First, read the UN Charter. Statements from UN podiums and meeting rooms are official and reflect the positions of entire states. Unlike tweets, these can be cited, and these positions are what historians will study. A serious person seeking to understand a particular issue will look for these, along with bilateral and multilateral documents.

[1976AG]

"Statements from the UN podium and meeting rooms are official in nature and reflect the position of entire states."

I completely agree with you here, but ordinary citizens don't have access to the meeting room, and they get their information from the media, which you yourself know all about.

"A serious person who wants to understand this or that issue will look for precisely this, along with bi- and multilaterally signed documents."

And here I agree with you, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't bother with such things and is content with what the media presents to them, while "serious" people can get information from the official websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (there are such websites), as well as at press conferences of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at which official information is also voiced.

[hrych]

Are you saying this to justify the most responsible taxpayer—Russia? But the majority of these 190 countries regularly support anti-Russian resolutions. Trinidad & Tobago, Bermuda, the Caribbean, and 50+ former British colonies, pirate islands that are now all offshore and provide "flags of convenience" for tax evasion, money laundering, and so on. Will these countries listen to our righteous point of view? Perhaps NATO and AUKUS countries will listen to us?

[SAG]

Only the majority of these 190 countries regularly support anti-Russian resolutions.

Believe me, even in these small countries, they're very careful about which way the wind is blowing and how strong it is. And when the wind shifts (as Mary Poppins said), they'll race to line up for the new world order. Because betraying in time is foreseeing! Everyone wants to live and have bread and butter, especially the border countries...

[hrych]

A normal world order is one where supranational structures are destroyed and there is no statehood in the borderlands. It must be earned. The UN, ICC, WHO, WADA, IAEA, FRS, FBI, and others have all ultimately turned out to be anti-Russian instruments in the hands of a group of insane, perverted, and obscurantist individuals. This only brings harm to the international community. Overall, it's a disgrace. The 21st century is already in full swing, the atom has been split and synthesized, outer space has been explored, and we're close to understanding gene structure. No, we have widespread trafficking in drugs, children, organs, and so on. All of this is under the auspices of supranational structures and not with their connivance, but under their direct control. The WHO doesn't fight diseases, but rather orchestrates pandemics and forces people to buy vaccines from specific corporations, etc. It's a legitimate form of control and theft from ordinary people. Although, of course, who created this world, where the food chain is at its core, and to live and reproduce, you need to devour someone, a similarly sick creature? And perhaps the best way to completely destroy such a system of biological life is to completely destroy it. Something humanity is already capable of with thermonuclear weapons. Or, let Christ return and change the paradigm of this hopeless, biological horror, torment and suffering of living beings on the Planet.

[SAG]

Or, let Christ come back and change the paradigm

Unfortunately, God's messenger wasn't able to change the world overnight, and there's certainly no point in hoping for such a miracle. The world is what its people are. Even knowing God's message, the world has come to where we are. The world's vices haven't diminished. One, two, and you're certainly not going to get to Eden. Humanity is in its infancy.
If we survive the next 20-30 years, then there is a chance to become Humanity!
As for the comment, I support everything!

[Silver99]

What's not clear to you? Read the article. The US and China pay half of the UN's costs. Are you willing to bear those costs?

[SAG]

It's not clear how the three of them can half-dance. Please formulate it more precisely.

[Alexander_K]

This means that the organization itself needs to be moved, for example to Beijing or Mumbai.

Twitter or Telegram are better. Voting is more convenient there, and speeches can be organized more comfortably, without the need to travel. And the result will be exactly the same. Then, much later, maybe they'll figure out how to reform the UN so it fulfills its core function.

[SAG]

Better on Twitter or Telegram

I don’t understand if you’re being serious or joking?!

[Alexander_K]

I don’t understand if you’re being serious or joking?!

In today's world, this distinction is becoming increasingly blurred. What politicians are saying and doing now was previously unimaginable, especially Trump. Official statements from the US State Department, for example, are published online. So, what's now perceived as mockery could easily become reality. Digitalization is advancing like a tank into all spheres of life, AI is planning military operations, our courts are held via videoconference, and so on. Who knows, maybe Telegram is the last chance to save the UN from complete extinction. Although, in truth, it's certainly mockery. The authority of the world's most important and only regulator has sunk to the level of the tabloids. And its effectiveness is zero.

[Victor Alien]

The best place for the UN would be on some island with an airfield where all the security would be under its flag, and the head of the UN would issue permits to visit. There are plenty of such properties—one could even choose one far away from everyone else. Then it would be much simpler, not logistically, but by the very principle of an independent body that won't be interfered with. Although, in fact, all negotiations could be conducted online—I think it's much cheaper to secure than transporting a herd of officials from one end of the globe to the other, plus paying someone to maintain buildings, security, and staff anywhere in the world. In-person meetings have long been almost unnecessary. They're just gatherings of show-offs because of which locals have roads blocked or other restrictions. Paper contracts are also no longer valid, let alone words. It's unclear why the hell they're throwing money away. If certain goods weren't shipped off somewhere, the world would be a much more peaceful place. And the population in places with nothing to eat wouldn't proliferate to such an extent that they become a nuisance to others. And for some reason, it's precisely those who feed them, treat them, and even arm them. With good intentions, we pave the road to hell for ourselves.

[SAG]

Although in fact all negotiations can be conducted online

Just 10 years ago, this idea was possible. Now, with the development of AI, trusting video images is becoming naive. Major countries with supercomputers and teams of hackers will find it easy to spin global politics like a fidget spinner. Who controls the root servers? Currently...I think all 13 belong to the US, EU, and Japan.

[Ivan Kuzmich]

Hello my dear brothers and sisters
Happy Spirit Day everyone!
To prevent the UN from going bankrupt, I suggest everyone chip in at least a ruble.
The UN is turning into a kitchen trash can

[Soldatov V.]

The UN's demise is neither good nor bad. Everything begins and ends. So we need to shut down the UN and thank them for their work. And start creating a new international organization, taking into account both the positive and negative experiences of the UN. There was the League of Nations, and it collapsed. Perhaps we should create two or three UN-like organizations: one based on NATO, another based on BRICS and other organizations. But the fact is that the UN is out of step with the times and has outlived its usefulness is certain.

[SAG]

create a new international organization taking into account the positive and negative experiences of the UN

A complete utopia. It's impossible to reach any compromise with any Western country on any aspect of the organization's creation. This would require at least a willingness on all sides to reach an agreement.
Creating a new organization without the West, rewriting and recoordinating all the regulatory documents, wasting resources and time... What's the point?
It's much easier to relocate the headquarters, maintain the old structure, and bar non-paying members from meetings. It'll be exactly the same without the millions of approvals.

[Soldatov V.]

If it's impossible to reach a compromise with the West on any issue, then there's no need for the UN, no matter where we haven't moved this junk. So let the West keep this reading room, and anyone who wants to negotiate and consider other interests should have their own organization.

[SAG]

and who wants to negotiate and take into account other interests of their organization?

And will many be willing to pay for the creation of such an organization and spend time and resources recreating the same regulatory documents, re-aligning previously assumed obligations by countries, of which not all are now in a position where it is profitable for them to comply?

[Soldatov V.]

Quite a few, questions and misunderstandings always arise that need to be resolved, both in trade and military matters between countries. America and NATO countries simply stand their ground, so there's no point in talking to them or engaging in dialogue. There's no respect, no culture of communication with us, and they just slap us with offensive labels. So a new organization will be needed, and it will be.

[SAG]

Unfortunately, in our world, everyone counts money. No one will invest in meaningless ideas. And the UN is not a reading room but an organization, a community of representatives of countries. The UN is people first and foremost.

[Cyril76]

A useless, obsolete organization. What reforms are there? If it's dead, so be it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This organization is more alive than any other. Its decisions are carried out with an iron will and determination.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals are being implemented in ways that are beyond imagination. Take paid parking, for example. The ideological justification for it stems from the idea that everyone should be encouraged to use bicycles and public transportation. And what about the climate agenda?

[Per se.]

If the situation is not corrected, the UN will be on the brink of bankruptcy by August.

It seems the UN is destined to share the same fate as the League of Nations, created after the First World War but rendered irrelevant by the inevitable Second World War, when the West needed to destroy the surging USSR. Thus emerged Hitler and the Third Reich, as anti-USSR, anti-communism. They failed to destroy them, but a new global socialist pole of power emerged. While these two global poles existed, the UN functioned. With the collapse of the USSR and the entire socialist bloc, "multipolarity" in global capitalism is a fiction. "Red" China, unlike the USSR, is not creating a socialist bloc; there is no semblance of a Comecon or Warsaw Pact; there is no internationalism in Chinese "communism." Incidentally, without the USSR's help, China would have remained a backward country; only thanks to Comrade Stalin, with the support and assurance of the Soviet Union, was industrialization and the creation of the atomic bomb possible.
After Damansky, the West invested in China, began to fashion an Eastern anti-USSR, complete with cheap labor. They also turned a blind eye to rampant piracy, copyright infringement, and technology theft. In this sense, China is at the same pole of capitalism, having not created its own, and Chinese socialism is more like "national communism," where only Chinese people are present.
What next? A war has essentially begun, whether the West's henpecked husbands wanted it or not, with the goal of depriving Russia of its main Soviet legacy from the superpower—the strategic nuclear forces. We've been unable to cope with Ukraine for five years now, we're depleting our conventional weapons, and if things get too far, Russia faces an ultimatum, with NATO mobilized and the Ukrainian Armed Forces strengthened. Is that the goal?
As for the UN, only with the emergence of a new, real pole of power on the planet can a fully-fledged international organization emerge again. This new pole is the revival of socialism in Russia, a renewed Union.

[SAG]

but a new world socialist pole of power has emerged

The key word here is "power!" Socialist or imperialist terms mean very little! China currently represents a power center comparable to Russia!

Russia is facing an ultimatum, with NATO mobilized and the Ukrainian Armed Forces strengthened.

The ultimatum was issued long ago! And where is the mobilized NATO? There are neither sufficient personnel nor superior weapons in quality or quantity, and most importantly, there is no unity and there never will be. Only supranational elites, in countless talk shops, take group photos and make grandiose statements!

[Per se.]

Quote: SAG

The key word here is "forces!" Whether it's socialist or imperialist has very little meaning!

Strength requires morality and ideology. By the way, what can we offer Ukraine now? Our oligarchs instead of theirs? Both are under the West, where they have everything. Why do they need such intermediaries? It's better to be under the West (that's Europe) right away. Otherwise, I won't repeat myself.

[SAG]

Strength requires morality and ideology.

It's necessary, but it's not even secondary, it's tertiary. The economy is secondary. Where are all the countries of the socialist camp? They changed their tune, betrayed everything and everyone when they felt the hegemon had no power and no benefit for them!
Let's learn history lessons so as not to be punished by it a second time?!

[Per se.]

Quote: SAG

Where are all the countries of the socialist camp?

You might first ask how perplexed the Soviet republics were when three alcoholics in Belovezhskaya Pushcha voluntarily declared the USSR's dissolution. Gorbachev, the chatterbox who essentially surrendered both the GDR and the USSR, later promoted pizza. What the current leaders will promote, and what they hope for, is another matter entirely. Cowards, traitors, and fools are, by and large, of no use to anyone.

[SAG]

Your question has almost nothing to do with the topic of conversation. The matter runs much deeper than the superficial appearance of three alcoholics!

[hrych]

It's strange that you still believe this. The Reich fought with France, the Benelux countries, and Great Britain, and before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Reich and the USSR didn't even have a common border. But it was supposedly created against the USSR. And pilots and tank crews were trained at our training grounds, because restrictions were imposed on the Germans after WWI. The Reich was bent by the British naval blockade, especially in terms of oil, and the USSR simply saved it, with the last echelon leaving at 1:00 a.m. on June 22nd. The USSR was the quickest to emerge. It signed the Pact, and even managed to violate it. And who brought up the PRC? For some reason, Stalin gifted Mao Manchuria and Mengjiang, captured by the Red Army, as well as Uyghuria, and essentially gave him the atomic bomb. It had cultivated a monster around its neck, and by 1945, the USSR, like the Republic of China (not to be confused with the Qing Empire), didn't even have a common border. And China is creating BRICS for its own benefit, just like the SCO, while Putin's Russia is merely a donor of mineral resources in this scheme, like South Africa. A sort of African version of participation.

[Per se.]

Quote: hrych

It's strange that you still believe in this.

They believe in God and the integrity of NASA. There are profits and superprofits, while some are fighting, others are making billions off of bloodshed. What can we say about Hitler and the Third Reich, if today our fat cats continue to sell raw materials to Russia's enemies? The Second World War is five years old, sanctions are in place, and the fat cats are only getting fatter. You're talking about Manchuria and Mengjiang, but Port Arthur and Dalny were given to the Chinese, along with whatever was there, including the main infrastructure assets. This is politics, and this was already under Khrushchev. They "befriended" Hitler, and the German National Socialist Workers' Party seemed closer to "the Europeans." So this is also politics, and there were mistakes that led to the pogrom of 1941. Not least, the "Sea Lion" convinced them that the Germans wouldn't fight on two fronts, but the "Lion" turned out to be a sham, a smokescreen; the main point was "Barbarossa." One could spend a long time questioning and arguing about how and why, but the outcome of World War II was that the US, the leader and master of capitalism, ultimately put the world on the dollar, while the USSR created a bloc of socialist countries, its own pole of power on the planet. They squandered a great country, fell for "democracy," where they screwed us over with Chubais-style privatization, and then quietly foisted capitalism on us with the traitor Yeltsin. A sort of nuclear-armed colony, where the main thing is to sell raw materials and semi-finished products, milk and squeeze Russia here and now, while moving assets abroad, to foreign banks, ultimately for the benefit of a foreign economy. All that's left is for the bad guys with nuclear weapons to deal with them, cunningly, so they don't get bayonets and pitchforks for outright treason, and then they'll be happy as before, in their cherished bourgeoisie. The USSR was not destroyed and traitors were not fed in order to make Russia stronger than the Soviet Union.

[hrych]

Port Arthur belonged to Manchukuo. Stalin also put the world on the dollar; he controlled most of Eurasia, and without his consent, nothing could happen. Just as Britain collapsed as a result of WWII. After the Reich, it was the second, main loser. Stalin determined that Headquarters would be in the financial capital of the United States, just as the World Bank was in the US capital. Stalin had been an agent of Rockefeller (the uncrowned king of the United States) since pre-revolutionary times and the Caucasian oil concessions. He worked to displace the concessions of Nobel and the Rothschilds, although the Rothschilds were lackeys of the British crown. And the intra-clan struggle within the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) is a struggle between Rockefeller-Stalinists and Rothschild-Trotskyists. To varying degrees, this continues to this day. Although the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was originally created by the Kaiser, after his fall, his agents rushed to swear allegiance to others. Therefore, the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and United Russia are essentially spy organizations with two main, global factions, just like the Cabinet of Ministers, represented by lobbyists for one or the other. There are also other, minor factions of pan-Turkists, Islamists, and even Russophiles, but ultimately, they submit to the two main factions. The same is true in the US, China, and the EU.

[Per se.]

Quote: hrych

Port Arthur belonged to Manchukuo.

Yes, there was a 25-year lease, according to the Russo-Chinese Convention of 1898. However, it was subsequently seized by the Japanese, who would hardly have been expelled from China without the USSR. Otherwise, on October 12, 1954, a joint Soviet-Chinese communiqué was published, stating that Soviet troops would withdraw from the Port Arthur naval base area, and all facilities would be handed over to the PRC government free of charge by May 31, 1955. We didn't have to leave, we didn't have to hand them over, especially not free of charge.
Did Britain collapse after World War II? I highly doubt it. It's simply no longer worth publicizing what serves better in the shadows, and it's become less obvious. The kid overseas has grown up and is doing all the dirty work of the global bouncer, or will someone else once again rake in the hot cakes in Europe, where Russia is now being ruined and bled dry in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
I don't even want to comment on Stalin, Rockefeller's agent. Yes, he made mistakes, one of them being his flirtation with Germany, no matter how much they later denied it. After the war, it was the capitalist world, not socialism, that relied on the dollar. Until recently, we didn't even acknowledge that the USSR paid for Lend-Lease in gold. In any case, Stalin built the USSR, under his rule nuclear weapons were developed, and the foundation for subsequent victories in space was laid.
It's a shame Boris Leontyevich, who called Putin a Bolshevik and blamed Medvedev for everything, has disappeared from the website. So, who are our newly minted bourgeoisie, and who is the Central Bank of Russia, is truly an interesting and, most importantly, a moving story, but it's our descendants who will draw the conclusions about who they will praise and who they will curse.

[Fedor Sokolov]

The UN is a useless talking shop, whose declarations and resolutions are purely advisory and non-binding. It's time for Russia to radically reconsider its attitude toward the UN, as well as the documents it adopts.

[Viktor Sergeev]

I agree with the US: the UN has outlived its usefulness, as has the League of Nations. It's a talking shop that resolves nothing.

[Hole puncher]

The UN is a rotten, corrupt organization that steals contributions and donations. It's like my sergeant major who collected money from everyone for toiletries once a month and then spent a week drinking in the supply room.

[Ivan Seversky]

The League of Nations, which existed during the interwar period, had 1.2 employees and was headquartered in Geneva.
By 2024, the UN had grown to 130 employees (46 of whom were in Africa and 30 in Palestine, their largest employer; 110 people in Russia). The UN's annual budget, including its agencies, amounted to $65 billion. It is now a huge bureaucratic monster, devouring the budget.
Neither the League of Nations nor the UN are capable of preventing wars, but they are not useless institutions if their staff and budget are reduced by a thousand times and left solely as an "open microphone" for all countries of the world.

[solar]

Russia, which occupies a special position within the organization, has the greatest interest in preserving the UN and its viability. It is effectively the last remaining significant lever of political influence on international affairs. It is our legacy from the USSR. If UN functions are transferred to the G7, we will lose this legacy once and for all.

[isv000]

Quote from solar

Russia, which occupies a special position within the organization, is most interested in preserving the UN and its viability. This is essentially the last remaining serious lever of political influence on international issues.

From the bottom of my heart! I haven't laughed this hard in ages... The UN, a lever of influence on international affairs...

[solar]

This isn't a world government, as some naively imagine. Hence the misunderstanding. In any case, the UN is currently paralyzed.

[APASUS]

The US couldn't break the UN 100%, like the IAEA, the OCCRP, and the Olympic Committee. Now they're starting to break it through the dollar.

[faterdom]

It's a shame that we are not among these non-paying countries.
But it was only the first time the Americans refused to issue visas to any of our diplomats for visits to the UN, and when they started incorporating our UN staff into our diplomatic corps in the US during staffing changes, we should have stopped funding back then. Until the statutory provisions regarding us are strictly observed.
But we're not like that here either. We're real originals. They make fun of us – we pay for it.

[isv000]

Why the hell feed a lazy dog ​​that only sleeps in a kennel?!

[belovvladimir]

The salaries of the employees of the long-defunct organization are apparently not bad, in any case, the UN dances to the tune of Washington, and we, Russia, also should not support their parasites, we pay, and they remain as blind as ever