Poor old Dave.

Why would Russia sit mutely by when the US meddles in the politics of a neighbouring State?

It’s quite refreshing that UN member States are aware of this fact and cast a vote for Russia.

Sorry David, your wrong to object.

Dan

To try to manufacture a greenlight for Russia to rape and pillage in Ukraine from U.N. assembly's majority vote is the height of self delusion? It is instead a big red light!

And needs to go further and remove Russia and a hostile China from the security counsel to remove their right to veto majority determinations?

If it doesn't act as outlined, I see the outcome as WW111! As the only measure left to resolve an outcome the democracies can live with?

Don't say you weren't warned you patently pro- Russia mouthpiece.
Alan B.

"And needs to go further and remove Russia and a hostile China from the security counsel to remove their right to veto majority determinations?"

That to me seems like a really good way to fast-track a nuclear war.
I support Russia.

Being a nuclear power makes them a permanent member of the security council- so that would imply that they need to have their nuclear status removed- to which their answer will be- over my cold dead body- my answer being- "what ever will be will be"- the Doris Day response- can you hear the music.

Step back and look at the bigger picture....?

To separate oneself from a harmful person is survival instinct kicking in.
Long, long, ago, it was the norm?
In practice, where a large group was being harassed by one of their number, they would force him away to a distant place.
He would be harmed, or even killed, if he approached them.

This banishment worked well when most of the world's surface was unknown and uninhabited.
But that is no longer the case.
Now, one would simply be sending him to the realm of some other group.
Who might send him to another, and so on.
Nothing positive would be achieved.
So a different approach is needed.

Now we keep them close, and keep an eye on them.
Usually by confining them within a controlled space we call a jail or correctional centre.
In extreme cases, a society will execute a trouble maker.
Where another country has a leader or a prominent person whose behaviour is a problem, that is not so easily done.

In that situation, other countries can only maintain strong defences, and keep as much contact with the 'trouble-maker' as is deemed desirable.
This is all they can do, when they want to keep the peace.
War is an extreme step, and the absolute last, irrevocable, and disaster ridden, response.
So other countries should keep their collective fingers crossed, and maintain a steady course.

On balance, I think the UN General Assembly got it right.
Their democratic decision was the correct one?
Nothing will be gained by banishment.
And bear in mind, it is just the leadership group which is the problem, not the country at large.

Ipso Fatso said- "On balance, I think the UN General Assembly got it right. Their democratic decision was the correct one? Nothing will be gained by banishment. And bear in mind, it is just the leadership group which is the problem, not the country at large."

Answer- The UN is not a democratic organization but democracy doesn't really work. All you can hope to do is give nations and groups a sandpit of freedom of sovereignty. It's not just the leadership- As in The Matrix those that are not unplugged are potentially agents.

But at least Ipso Fatso appears to be trying to honestly analyze the problems

It was a clear majority, of members, which made the decision at the UN General Assembly.
I see that as democratic.
Whether the organisation is truly representative of all countries is another matter.
Perhaps it just represents a majority of those countries?
That should give its decisions some weight anyway?
I think that it is better that they exist, than not.

I need to add here that I read other contributor's responses carefully.
In most cases, I can see a valid alternative point of view.
I learn a lot, and often take new ideas on board.

The general assembly votes are traded for influence with the security councils permanent and non-permanent members. Even in Australia's representative democracy promises are not kept- let alone at the international level where much more is at stake.

In a sense democratic principles can be "good" but pragmatically the good is often not achieved- many believe that democracy gives the impression of fairness without the reality. Often the people don't know what is good for themselves so they'll never get it. In many ways the good of the people is thwarted. The poor are poor because they are poor.

If there were less people in the world things would be better for everyone- population density per surface area- cultures stay in their own territory- supply and demand- otherwise cultures will fight for surface dominance till there is nothing left- we are still trying to solve the cultural surface area problems highlighted in Plato's Republic- but that is what the nihilist socialists want- nothingness- and the death that comes with it.