United Nations is not fit for purpose

The United Nations Organisation is not fit  for purpose.

How is it that all of the independent sovereign nations of the world there gathered cannot act effectively against ISIL? 

ISIL, after all,  is an unrecognised self-proclaimed rogue “state” which stands condemned by all.

The UN, surely, if able to muster near unanimity, should have the necessary authority to act.

One bar to unanimous action may be the veto wielded by key states in the Security Council.  But do any of those support ISIL?  That is surely inconceivable.

Why no action? Perhaps some reform is needed in any event: should the General Assembly have the power, if wielded by a very high majority, say 80 or 90%, of all member nations, be able to overrule a minority view of just one veto wielding power, or to compel the Security Council to act?

EU peacocking is a danger.

The EU is wrong to perform its current diplomatic sabre -rattling routine. 

The reality is that the interest which Russia has in Sevastopol, and hence Crimea, is vital to her; more vital to her than Portsmouth is to the UK. 

The old arrangement, the one put in place by Khrushchev at a time when no one dreamt that the USSR would ever fall or fail, gave Russia all she needed and let Ukraine have her place on the world stage.

The EU has disturbed that when Baroness Ashton (The English Woman) carried out her pas de deux with Kiev.  It is the EU which has the expansionist mindset.

So why all this EU peacocking?  Is it because it takes the eye off the Eurozone crisis?  

I think so: It is an old ploy, and a dangerous one at that.