(By Irek Murtazin. Novaya gazeta, Oct. 10, 2016, p. 8. Condensed text:) Editors’ Note. - The UN is increasingly becoming a platform for vehement intransigence and reluctance to seek compromises. Sometimes one gets the impression that UN member states (above all Security Council members) no longer set much store by the organization and are even ready for its dissolution. The UN’s declining authority and its actual inability to influence conflicting parties have been laid bare in discussions on the situation in Syria and the Donetsk Basin. ... What is going on with the UN and what are its prospects? ... We put these questions to Anatoly Adamishin, who was Soviet deputy foreign minister from 1986 to 1990; Russian first deputy foreign minister from 1992 to 1994; and minister for cooperation with CIS states from 1997 to 1998. Since 2004, he has served as president of the Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation. ... * * * ... Question. - Anatoly Leonidovich [Adamishin], what is happening with the UN? Haven’t UN Security Council members been using their veto power a little too often recently? Why has the search for consensus become so difficult? Is there a sense that the UN in its present form has outlived its usefulness, and that the organization will either dissolve itself or will be seriously reformatted? ... Answer. - I will begin by going back a little. As long as humanity has been around, its best minds have constantly thought about how to avoid war. It was this aim that led to the creation of the League of Nations after World War I, thanks primarily to then-US president Woodrow Wilson - which, however, proved incapable of performing its missions for very long because, among other things, [the Soviet Union] attacked Finland at that time. ... However, after the horrible massacre that was World War II, with tens of millions of deaths, it finally became clear that there was a need for an organization that would be tasked mainly with preventing global war. ... The UN was "pushed through," so to speak, by [then-] president Franklin Roosevelt. He even concealed his disease to be elected for a fourth term and see his idea through to the end. ... Roosevelt’s idea was absolutely correct: Someone had to take charge, look after other countries, and pacify them. He believed that without the Soviet Union, an organization like that would be unviable. Today, Roosevelt is even being accused of sacrificing, say, Poland to pacify Stalin. However, it was clear to him right from the start: If there was no agreement between the USSR and the US, there would be no viable organization. So right from the outset, there was an idea of creating a Soviet-US cooperative agreement of sorts so that the Americans would contain the countries over which they had influence, while [the USSR] would contain those we had influence over. ... Thanks to this "co-op" of the two superpowers, the world avoided serious conflicts for four decades. ... Q. - Going back to the Cuban missile crisis, would you say that the UN played a decisive role? ... A. - The Cuban missile crisis? It was resolved by [John] Kennedy and [Nikita] Khrushchev - more so by Kennedy. Forget the UN: [Khrushchev and Kennedy] did not even have time to send encoded notes to each other, instead making announcements by telephone or on the radio. At that time, the world really was on the brink of war. And you know what? Khrushchev extricated himself from that situation thanks to Kennedy’s wisdom. When a blockade of Cuba was announced, one of our ships broke through, and the Pentagon strongly urged Kennedy to allow the ship to be attacked. Kennedy refused. In other words, the Cuban missile crisis was dealt with purely through Soviet-US contacts. It was only afterward that the UN approved steps to prevent the escalation of the conflict. ... Q. - Okay, so the Cuban missile crisis developed too rapidly and the UN was simply unable to respond in time. But what about Vietnam? Or Afghanistan? Both were instances of almost open confrontation between the USSR and the US. ... A. - That’s right. However, it would probably be more accurate to say that the world was saved from World War III. ... Q. - In other words, the UN has been fundamentally unable to stop local conflicts? Everyone understood very well who was fighting in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but pretended that the superpowers were not present there? ... A. - Yes, that is true: The events in Vietnam were a proxy war between [the USSR] and the Americans. The same goes for the war in Afghanistan. The confrontation continued at the diplomatic level too: During these 40 years, if we did not like something at the UN, we vetoed it. [Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei] Gromyko once boasted: "With this hand, I cast 30 vetoes there." The Americans were no different: They also often used their veto power, albeit perhaps a little less often. For instance, the US never allowed a single resolution through that affected Israel.