UN faces bankruptcy because of the US and China's non-payment

[Lucius]

The world will not be a better or worse place if such an organization ceases to exist, because apart from pretending to do something useful, their influence on the world is quite insignificant. I'm not saying there aren't people among them who are doing something good, but most of them are just ordinary parasites and leeches who spend a lot of money without making any positive change in society.

Let them be financed by donations from ordinary people and let them see how much these same people value them.

[snowpega]

...
What do you think the UN will yield to the demand of the Trump administration, or will the world lose this world governing body

Well, the payment alone is not that big, as for such big economies, countries like the US and China, it is very easy to pay such an amount back, but I am also wondering why they are not paying it back. According to my best knowledge, currently situation of the US economy is not that good at this time. Due to many factors, like debt, which has reached a new all-time high under the Trump administration, inflation rates are increasing badly and damaging the US economy. The cost of goods, petrol, and oil is also increasing. The US, in my point of view, is right now standing at the worst verge.

Because the US has to return all the money that it collects in the form of tariffs internationally, as this amount alone is above 100 billion. And the amount that it has to pay back to the UN is not as big as compared to the tariff amount. Another thing is that I don't know why China is not paying that amount, as it is in fine condition compared to the US right now. What do you think about that?

[Coyster]

Will we lose the UN? Nah. We will simply have it around as furniture.

It has pretty much been that way as far as i am concerned. It is a very slow and inefficient organization and nobody can claim that its impact is felt around the world. Yes, they do some stuff, but it is definitely not enough, and nothing close to what their core function is, not to mention how slow they are to respond to crisis/emergencies.

That said, they are obviously worse off without these fundings; so it is either they somewhat yield to demands or they would be completely irrelevant as an organization.

Well, the payment alone is not that big, as for such big economies, countries like the US and China, it is very easy to pay such an amount back, but I am also wondering why they are not paying it back. According to my best knowledge, currently situation of the US economy is not that good at this time.  
~
Another thing is that I don't know why China is not paying that amount, as it is in fine condition compared to the US right now. What do you think about that?

It is all politics. They understand how important their funding is to the U.N., so they are trying to use it to influence the organization through the card they hold.

[WillyAp]

I approached an Employee over twitter, now X, and in public she was eager to help.
No message, or intention to come through. I bet its is not the only case.

I laso met a guy once who stopped by at our little island who told be a few details what to expect when pushing a project.
He sounded really disappointed.
 

[robelneo]

It looks like they are hostage to their biggest contributor. This is what happens when the president of the US is indifferent to the UN's cause and serves only his own interests.
When Trump says they want "high-intensity restructuring," they mean they want the UN to follow their instructions, so there's a possibility the UN will have to meet their needs within the existing budget until the Trump administration is replaced.

[Oluwa-btc]

 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, WORLD BANK AND UNITED NATIONS ARE THREE BODIES WE SHOULD NO LONGER TAKE SERIOUSLY.

The United nations greatly influenced by the US has never ended any unjust war, all they do is support a side blindly. What harm will it cause if all these bodies quits existing?!

[DrBeer]

They already yielded. Cut 3,000 staff, cut 15% budget, speed up troop withdrawal from Congo. What more yielding do people want.

There is no guarantee of anything from yielding. The US owes $4 billion and there's zero incentive to actually pay. Withholding is the leverage. Once you pay, you're out. Essential game theory concepts. Both Washington and Beijing figured it out. That is why China is still $455 million in debt and acts as if it's still protecting multilateralism. Bit rich.

In the 80s, Reagan did the same thing literally! Kassebaum-Solomon Amendment, pulled out of UNESCO, withheld dues until the UN restructured. What IS different this time: Trump pulled the US out of 31 UN bodies in January alone. UNFCCC, UN Women, UNFPA.

Meanwhile WFP is operating on half its needed budget. Reducing food rations in West Africa as we discuss whether the institution is "bloated. Real people, real hunger and we're talking about efficiency.

The UN won't formally die. There's no mechanism for that. But it can turn into a complete hollow and by all means it is going. A paper organisation that does not do anything is worse than a falling organisation. At least collapse forces you to build something new.

Will we lose the UN? Nah. We will simply have it around as furniture.

I'll argue with the last argument
Argument number 1: who and for what money will maintain this HUGE, formalized, useless but mega-corrupt organization? There are no fools to just throw money away so that they can continue to live without doing the slightest good.
Argument number 2: About usefulness. Somebody probably thinks there is?! That's a fallacy. I used to think they were saving from hunger, building schools, hospitals.... Yes, in fact, they do. But that's the picture behind the wildest plundering of money and corruption schemes around the world.
For every 1 dollar of real aid, 9 goes into the pockets of UN officials and local officials involved in “aid” schemes. It sounds disgusting, but it's a fact.