(CNN) — Russia was furious about the blatant violations and contraventions of protocols and norms. But Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, did not focus on the sick atrocities of which Russian troops in Ukraine are accused. Instead, he was infuriated by the alleged violations of the scheduling of meetings protocol.
This strange circus at the beginning of a scorching session of the Security Council on Tuesday merely corroborated Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s point: What is the point of the UN if it cannot act on crimes against humanity and punish aggressors?
The crisis in Ukraine is not the only time that the impotence of the United Nations, installed in its institutions by the veto power of its five permanent members of the Security Council and its need to often seek consensus on the most controversial issues , has failed to act to prevent heinous acts.
But the violent attack in Ukraine is really revealing the limits of this post-World War II institution. Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, can effectively veto investigations into its alleged crimes.
Zelensky proposed a conference to discuss reform of the United Nations and the Security Council, an idea frequently debated that never leads anywhere. He argued that a Security Council was meaningless if it could not promote the security of UN member states. He also called for a Nuremberg-style trial to bring the war criminals Russians brought to justice.
“Please show how we can reform or change and work for peace,” Zelensky told Security Council members in his latest shocking video address.
“If there is no alternative and no option, then the next option would be to completely disband. And I know you can admit that if there’s nothing you can do besides talk.”
Some US lawmakers have called for Russia to be expelled from the Security Council. However, even if the UN General Assembly were to cast the necessary two-thirds vote to do so, Moscow could use its veto to block its own expulsion. And even if it didn’t, China would probably back Moscow.
Critics of the United States and the West often complain that they too manipulate the Security Council for their own ends.
In 2003, for example, the Bush administration tried unsuccessfully to obtain a second Council resolution authorizing military action in Iraq, fueling opponents’ claims that the ensuing war was illegal.
In the past, the Security Council has established international tribunals and investigations into war crimes in places like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. But there is no chance that Moscow will vote to stand trial, which means that if Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals face justice, it will not be through the UN.
The applause that resounded in the Security Council chamber for Zelensky’s speech must have sounded rather empty from Kyiv.