Yet, this gives rise to the central paradox of the modern UN. The organization is meant to counter aggression, but the most critical decisions rest with the Security Council, where five states hold special powers: the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France. Any one of them can block a substantive resolution by exercising its veto.

This is precisely why the situation regarding Russia appears so contradictory. Russia is itself a permanent member of the Security Council and can therefore block decisions directed against it. For instance, in 2022, the Security Council failed to adopt several resolutions concerning Ukraine specifically due to the Russian veto.

At the same time, it would be incorrect to claim that the UN is entirely powerless. Under the Charter, the Security Council has the authority to impose economic sanctions and other measures - and, as a last resort, to authorize the use of armed force. However, this requires a Council decision, and a Russian veto can block such a course of action.

This highlights a historical issue embedded in the UN’s very foundation: the organization was structured to ensure that major powers would not go to war with one another within the system. Its creators effectively granted veto power to the five victorious powers of World War II because, without their participation, the collective security system might simply have failed to function. Yet today, that same rule allows a state involved in a conflict to block Security Council actions.

Therefore, the question is not merely whether the UN is "helpless." Rather, the modern system is revealing its primary flaw: an international organization may possess vast powers on paper, yet its capabilities are constrained by the political will of states - particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council. The UN itself acknowledges that the veto power held by these five permanent members has repeatedly led to paralysis within the Council.

This is precisely why the question is increasingly being raised today: should a system established in 1945 remain virtually unchanged in the 21st century, or have the rules of international security long been in need of reform?