Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
I agree with you on the Article 51 point in general terms, but, you can't put peacekeepers in where there isn't a peace. So don't vote for a bad idea. Further that point, you can't put in a peace enforcement group in (see Former Yugoslavia, 1990's, NATO Operation Deliberate Force which was to enforce the Dayton Agreement) without a peace/peace agreement in place. No, inserting peace keepers into a hot war is a non starter.
You may also recall that more than once in the the Sinai UN peacekeepers either were withdrawn or were more or less ignored when various wars there were begun. The peacekeepers were only re-inserted when the shooting stopped and some kind of agreement was put together. Shooting hasn't stopped in Ukraine, has it? No, not as of this morning.
With the above said, a direct intervention (similar to Korea 1950) is certainly an option should a coalition of interested parties assemble and insert such a force (under the general proviso of collective defense per Article 51) without necessarily asking the UNSC "by your leave". That probably won't have a UN 'good housekeeping seal of approval' attached to it regardless of how effective it is, or isn't. Since the UN has some well known limitations as a collective security organization maybe that 'good housekeeping seal' doesn't matter - but some people in positions of power think that it does, in terms of their never ending search for legitimacy. (A generally vain hope, given what a bunch of right bastards most politicians are).
All of the above also applies to any attempt at instituting a no-fly zone. (<- lookie there, aviation content!)
I wanted to say "Like Korea, c1950" but I thought the term peace was due to be exercised. The Charter comes with an absolute right for self-defense, and also a policy of collective defense by Charter signatories against aggressor nations.
There is no legal right that Russia has to invade a sovereign nation, and doing so just because you happen to have nukes is no basis for global security.