This has always been my opinion: by definition the UN can't really have enforcement power...but a huge problem in international politics is that you have to actually have protocols and procedures by which the various world powers can communicate with each other at the correct levels of government.

It's the physical action problem: when a government makes policy, how does that go from words to actions? In the international relations business it's the same issue: the prime minister or president or whoever wants to communicate a message reliably to other nations - but who exactly do they talk to do it? (this problem was why the hotline system between the US and Russia was setup after the Cuban missile crisis - a major issue driving the decision making was 6 to 12 hour communication delays trying to go through embassies and hoping messages were being accurately sent).

Even the Security Council has limited usefulness in a confrontation like this, because decisions are so politicized. The case of Bucha is a great example. When reports of atrocities first came out, it was Russia who requested the UN to launch a commission of inquiry into Bucha, and it was the UK, who held the presidency of the Security Council at the time, that blocked it. This was reported in Ukrainian news. (https://frontnews.eu/en/news/details/25750)

1. No wonder. The UN is the epitome of “politicised”. It is it’s main function.

2. No wonder the UK blocked an inquiry into how the Ukrainians blatantly massacred themselves to provoke Russia.

Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and will veto anything holding it accountable. The Security Council is already lost.

And under the UN Charter, Russia can't be removed. The Soviet Union were expelled from the League of Nations after invading Finland in 1939.

The General Assembly can and should do more. Or the UN system will defacto collapse into irrelevance.

What? North Korea, india, Pakistan are not on the security council, and most mitigation of nuclear war probably happens via things that are less public (red phones). Hell. The US and Russia even collaborate - to this day - on a space station, that's independent of and does more for preventing nuclear war than the UN security council

These powers can't (yet, maybe) fight WW3.

If they become a credible force in the future, I fully expect them to be accepted in the security council.

North Korea isn't even worth mentioning, their weapons are a joke except as leverage enough to get free UN food from time to time.

You just moved the goalposts and did not address the point I made, which is that the bulk of security council work is not discussing nuclear issues, and that the powers with nukes have other ways of talking to each other.

Okay, let’s put it this way. The security council is a way to lessen the risk that the most powerful countries destroy the world. I think this is the most important piece of the UN. This is my opinion.