Last October marked 80 years since the United Nations emerged from the ashes of World War II. The organization and its 51 founding members had lofty aspirations: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war by confronting aggression and the underlying roots of conflict—poverty, mass atrocities, and crumbling empires. Today, the UN has 193 member states and thousands of mandates.

Q. Has the UN lived up to expectations?

A. For many, no. The Cold War paralyzed the Security Council, and failures in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia in the 1990s exposed the limits of post–Cold War optimism. The UN is better at creating mandates than fulfilling them: Intergovernmental negotiations often yield vague, underfunded commitments that leave climate, human rights, and development advocates underwhelmed.

But given entrenched divisions among its membership, what is the appropriate standard for judging the UN’s record? Former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld famously observed that the UN was “not created to bring us into heaven, but in order to save us from hell.” By this standard, the UN has played a meaningful—if flawed—role in reducing human suffering. It keeps major powers talking and buys time, which delays escalation and limits the spread of wars. Peacekeeping operations have facilitated ceasefires and reduced civilian deaths, while humanitarian agencies save millions of lives.

Q. Where does the UN stand at 80, and where is it headed?

A. The UN faces a precarious future defined by a deepening financial crisis and growing geopolitical marginalization. Most acutely, the United States—the UN’s financial anchor—has written off its outstanding bills while demanding steep budget cuts. Beyond fiscal strain, the UN faces a crisis of trust, has played a limited role beyond humanitarian assistance in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, and has not authorized a major peacekeeping mission in over a decade.

While some hoped the 2024 Pact for the Future would catalyze renewal, critics dismiss it as largely aspirational. Unlike earlier periods marked by reform efforts, the UN is edging toward retrenchment or worse.

Competing visions abound. The Trump administration advocates a “back to basics” approach centered on crisis diplomacy, though this remains a hard sell globally. Others hope alternative donors will fill the gap, despite thin evidence. Ultimately, the UN’s survival hinges on whether global capitals make long-elusive compromises. For an institution founded on lofty ambition forged from the hard lessons of war, what it needs now is a heavy dose of pragmatism.

Answers have been edited for length and clarity.