The relevance of the United Nations is a matter of ongoing debate, and I don't think this is a question that can be settled with a simple yes/no answer supported by search results—it's fundamentally a question of values, perspective, and how one weighs the UN's various roles. That said, I can lay out the key facts and arguments on different sides so you can form your own view.
The case that the UN remains relevant:
•Near-universal membership and legitimacy: The UN includes 193 member states, making it the only forum where virtually every country on Earth has a seat at the table. No other institution offers this level of universal participation.
•Humanitarian and development work: UN agencies (WHO, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR, etc.) continue to operate globally, providing vaccines, food aid, refugee protection, and disaster relief in places no other organization reaches at scale.
•Peacekeeping: The UN still runs peacekeeping missions in multiple conflict zones, and while imperfect, these missions have historically helped stabilize situations in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
•Normative and legal framework: The UN underpins much of international law—treaties on human rights, climate (Paris Agreement was negotiated under UN auspices), nuclear non-proliferation, and law of the sea. It provides a common reference point even when enforcement is weak.
•Convening power: Bodies like the UN General Assembly and specialized agencies remain a primary venue where global crises (pandemics, climate change, migration) are discussed and coordinated, even if imperfectly.
The case that the UN's relevance is diminished or in question:
•Security Council paralysis: The veto power held by the five permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) has repeatedly blocked action on major crises—Syria, Ukraine, and others—leading critics to argue the Council is structurally unable to address conflicts involving major powers or their allies.
•Enforcement limitations: The UN has no independent military force and relies on member states for enforcement, meaning resolutions are often symbolic when powerful states choose to ignore them.
•Bureaucracy and reform stagnation: Critics point to slow bureaucracy, funding crises, and decades of failed attempts to reform the Security Council's composition (which still reflects the post-WWII power structure) as evidence the institution hasn't adapted to a multipolar world.
•Selective effectiveness: The UN's track record is mixed—strong in humanitarian delivery and norm-setting, weak in preventing or stopping major-power conflicts or genocide (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Syria are often cited).
•Rise of alternative forums: G7, G20, regional bodies (EU, African Union, ASEAN), and ad hoc coalitions increasingly handle issues that might once have gone through the UN, raising questions about whether the UN is being sidelined on the biggest geopolitical issues.
Bottom line: Most serious analysts don't frame this as binary. The UN is widely seen as indispensable for humanitarian aid, development, and as a diplomatic meeting ground, while simultaneously viewed as inadequate or paralyzed on hard security issues involving great-power rivalry. Whether that mix counts as "still relevant" depends on what you think an international organization's job should be.
If you'd like, I can look into more current specifics—like recent Security Council votes, funding crises, or reform debates—to ground this in what's happening right now.