Is the United Nations still relevant?
The relevance of the United Nations is a genuinely contested question, and reasonable people disagree based on different criteria for what "relevant" means. Let me lay out the main considerations rather than give a flat yes/no.
Arguments that the UN remains relevant
It's the only truly universal forum. With 193 member states, it's the one place where virtually every country on Earth can talk to every other country, including adversaries who might not otherwise have diplomatic channels.
Humanitarian and development work continues at massive scale. Agencies like the WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF, and WHO deliver food, vaccines, refugee assistance, and disaster relief to hundreds of millions of people annually — work that rarely makes headlines but has concrete, measurable impact.
Peacekeeping still happens. UN peacekeepers are deployed in numerous conflict zones, and while missions are often criticized, they've also stabilized situations (e.g., historically in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste) that might otherwise have spiraled further.
Normative and legal framework. Treaties, conventions, and bodies born from or housed at the UN (climate accords, human rights law, the law of the sea, nuclear non-proliferation) still shape state behavior even when enforcement is weak.
Specialized technical bodies function reasonably well. Groups like the ITU (telecom standards), IAEA (nuclear oversight), and WMO (weather/climate data) do largely technocratic work that isn't politically contentious and continues effectively.
Arguments that its relevance is declining or limited
Security Council paralysis. The veto power of the five permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) has repeatedly blocked action on major crises — Syria, Ukraine, and others — when a permanent member or its ally is involved.
Enforcement problems. The UN has no independent army or reliable enforcement mechanism; it depends on member states' willingness to act, which is often absent when it's inconvenient.
Credibility challenges. Bodies like the Human Rights Council have been criticized for including member states themselves accused of serious abuses, undermining moral authority.
Bypassed on major issues. Great powers increasingly act unilaterally or through smaller coalitions (NATO, regional alliances, ad hoc coalitions) when the UN can't deliver consensus — Iraq 2003, Kosovo 1999, and others are often cited examples.
Reform gridlock. Attempts to update Security Council membership or veto rules to reflect 21st-century power distribution have gone nowhere for decades, leading critics to say the institution is stuck in a 1945 framework.
A reasonable synthesis
The UN is probably best understood as relevant but limited — indispensable for humanitarian delivery, technical coordination, and as a diplomatic meeting space, but structurally hampered on the highest-stakes security matters where great-power interests collide. Its critics and defenders are often talking about different parts of the institution: peacekeeping/Security Council failures get the news coverage, while WFP food deliveries or IAEA inspections quietly continue.
If you want, I can look into a specific angle — like recent UN actions on a particular conflict, reform proposals, or funding/withdrawal issues (e.g., US funding decisions) — since those are areas where things have shifted recently.