The entire point of the UN and "the law" is that Russia gets to veto the same as the US gets to veto.
(It's also inapplicable, since even if Russia consented, China wouldn't.)
No, but it is circular reasoning to base your argument for refusing consent by saying it is illegal. It's much less compelling if he comes right out and says: "Don't do it, because I don't want you too." So he tries to make the logic convoluted.
>> "The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope..."
>> From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.
Right there they mention that they are for peaceful dialog because they are trying to protect international law. If they were really concerned with international law, why would they veto? Obviously, because they don't want it to happen, not this nonsense about them being all of a sudden concerned about international law.
- Stop this! You're hurting me. Stop it! You'll go to jail.
- I wouldn't go to jail if you just consented to sex.
- Hey *, colored section is that way! You'll go to jail.
- I could sit here if you white people weren't the one making the law.
(That's the thing I love about analogies, they can be turned both ways and prove nothing)
The parent comment was stating the point that Putin was making it illegal himself by vetoing and retracting the veto would have made it legal. The same thing happens in sex, if you consent to it, it's ok; if you don't, it's rape. That's the mechanism of consent and of veto.
In your analogy there is no way the white bus passenger could instantly change the law by consenting to the black man sitting in the wrong section. It is illegal regardless of his opinion.
In sex as in international diplomacy you need unanimity (at least of the security council).
The whole analogy business in arguments is one witty exercise in strawman.
Allow me to point out America's veto record:
"Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel's treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence." [Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-r...]
If there is unilateral consensus, you don't need formal bodies to do stuff, since everybody agrees anyway. However, if we want the global community to be effective, then we need an ability to make decisions and do stuff even if Russia or USA or China is against that, if the vast majority of the world understands that, say, a massacre must be prevented.
Currently we can't do that. As I said, in a number of cases Russia has prevented any progress by using the veto or threat of it. USA has done the same regarding Israel/Palestine - my impression is that it's their major use, media doesn't represent others much. China has as well - often things are abandoned simply because it is clear that it will be vetoed anyway. In essence, only trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there, but any serious things that matter - can't, as definitely someone with some interest will veto that. So the veto powers should be reformed.
"trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there" I wouldn't call the UNSC resolution on Mali "trivial and unneccesary thing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...