UN paralysis in Ukraine and the Middle East underscores the case for structural reform

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was designed to be the world’s final backstop against large-scale conflict. Its mission: maintain international peace and security. But from the prolonged war in Ukraine to escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, the institution has largely been relegated to the sidelines—issuing statements after facts on the ground have already changed.

This isn’t a temporary lapse. It reflects a structural breakdown in the body’s ability to mediate, enforce, or even meaningfully deter conflict. In a multipolar world where power has become increasingly fragmented, the veto-dominated Security Council now acts less as a forum for conflict resolution and more as a projection screen for geopolitical stalemate.

The practical consequences of this paralysis are increasingly visible: institutional erosion, unchecked escalation, and growing risk premiums for sovereign decision-makers and allocators of capital. The lesson is clear: without structural reform, the UN cannot deliver on its founding mandate—and its continued stasis will only deepen global instability.

The war in Ukraine has proven to be one of the clearest examples of the UN’s diminished influence. Since the Russian invasion in February 2022, the Security Council has convened repeatedly. It has condemned violence, called for ceasefires, and voted on draft resolutions. Yet none of these efforts have meaningfully constrained Russia’s actions—because Russia holds a permanent seat, and with it, veto power.

This dynamic is not new. But the visibility and scale of the conflict have made it undeniable. A founding principle of the post-war system—that no country should redraw borders through force—has been openly violated by one of the five permanent members (P5) tasked with upholding that very order.

The erosion of enforcement isn’t just a legal concern. It creates real capital and policy risks. Countries that once believed in diplomatic resolution channels now face rising defense costs. Refugee spillovers, supply chain disruptions, and food insecurity triggered by the Ukraine conflict have all been amplified by the Security Council’s failure to act.

In institutional terms, the body’s credibility has taken a structural hit. No emerging power will see the Council as a reliable forum for arbitration when its core norms are violated with impunity.

The Security Council’s weakness has been further exposed by the rising tension between Iran and Israel. What began as proxy conflict has edged dangerously close to direct confrontation, particularly after Iran’s unprecedented missile and drone attack in April 2024 and Israel’s calibrated but provocative retaliation.

Yet again, the Council’s response has been fragmented. Multiple emergency meetings yielded little consensus, hamstrung by the competing alignments of veto-wielding members. The United States has consistently shielded Israel, while Russia and China oppose resolutions seen as undermining Iranian sovereignty.

The vacuum of enforceable multilateral action has allowed regional actors to set their own rules of engagement. Rather than de-escalation, we now observe normalization of strategic ambiguity, covert escalation, and coalition-building outside of formal institutions.

This shift has profound consequences. It undermines the deterrent power of international law and increases the volatility of regional conflict, particularly in energy-sensitive corridors. In capital terms, this translates into long-term pricing risk for infrastructure investment, higher insurance costs, and slower capital deployment into adjacent markets like Iraq, Lebanon, or the Gulf.

At the heart of the problem is a Security Council that no longer reflects the realities of 21st-century power. Its permanent membership—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—was established in 1945. Since then, the global economic and political landscape has changed beyond recognition.

India, now the world’s most populous country and a top-five economy, holds no permanent seat. Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa—all regional anchors—lack institutional voice proportionate to their strategic relevance. The absence of representative legitimacy fuels disengagement and accelerates fragmentation.

Veto power, intended as a check to maintain peace among superpowers, has become a tool of obstruction. In practice, it enables unilateral actors to shield themselves and their allies from consequence. In a world where most conflicts are asymmetric, hybrid, or regional in nature, the current system disables rather than enables preventive action.

For an institution tasked with collective security, this is not merely a design flaw. It is a foundational contradiction.

Global governance is not just about diplomacy—it shapes how markets assess stability, risk, and resilience. The retreat of enforceable multilateralism has led to a world where the cost of capital reflects more volatility and less trust in shared norms.

For sovereign wealth funds, export credit agencies, and multilateral development banks, the erosion of the UN’s relevance has meant a recalibration of due diligence. Fragile or contested regions are now subject to longer assessment cycles and require stronger political guarantees. Defense budgets are expanding in countries that historically relied on institutional deterrence. Soft power investments—such as education, cultural diplomacy, and humanitarian aid—are increasingly being subordinated to hard security outlays.

In short, the price of disorder is being paid in interest rate spreads, capital delays, and loss of strategic optionality.

With the UN increasingly sidelined, regional bodies have stepped in to manage local tensions. ASEAN has intensified diplomatic engagement over South China Sea disputes. The African Union has mounted peacekeeping efforts with growing coordination. The Gulf Cooperation Council has strengthened its joint military exercises and diplomatic cohesion.

These efforts are not insignificant. They demonstrate adaptive capability and regional ownership of security. However, they are no substitute for a credible global architecture. Most lack the legal authority, financial firepower, or enforcement capacity to impose outcomes.

Moreover, reliance on regional security constructs introduces a new layer of fragility. As alliances become more interest-based than principle-based, their cohesion is vulnerable to short-term political swings. This increases the unpredictability of responses to future shocks—from cyberattacks to territorial aggression or energy blackmail.

Arguments against UN reform often rest on political feasibility. But the question is no longer whether reform is easy—it is whether irrelevance is affordable. Multiple proposals have been floated: expansion of permanent membership, rotation of regional representatives, curbs on veto usage, or creation of emergency override mechanisms. None are simple. But all reflect a growing understanding that institutional inertia is now a liability, not a neutral condition.

A reformed Security Council would not eliminate conflict. But it would restore a baseline of procedural legitimacy, offer emerging powers a stake in the global order, and create a channel for early resolution of crises that otherwise spiral. It would also re-anchor the expectations of investors, policymakers, and development institutions who continue to rely—implicitly or explicitly—on the framework of global governance.

Without reform, that framework will increasingly be bypassed, and the world will pay the price in fragmentation, escalation, and disorder.

Officially, the United Nations continues to speak the language of peace, dialogue, and preventive diplomacy. But behavior—by both member states and the institution itself—tells a different story. When wars erupt and the Council cannot act, when vetoes shield violations of international law, and when critical powers bypass the system altogether, the signal is clear: the current model no longer delivers on its mandate.

Without structural reform, the world’s most important peacekeeping body will continue to drift toward ceremonial relevance—seen, heard, but ultimately ignored. And in that vacuum, conflict finds room to grow.