Created in the immediate wake of WW2, the arrangements at UN still reflect the times and expectations of that day. Permanent seats at the Security Council are filled by winners of the war, and China. Each of these has the right to veto resolutions. As a result of that, the Security Council has been unable to pass a joint and binding verdict after the events in Crimea (and many such instances before that when it was very much expected). Knowing beforehand, that Russia would do its veto.
It’s a matter of taste what word to use about a security council which, in case of controversies between major powers, is unable to arrive at decisions and ends up looking the other way when international law is broken. Considering that, the statements by President Ilves and Mart Laar’s «pointless place» are rather diplomatic.
On the other hand, the adjectives like «toothless», «paralysed», «pointless» do not apply to all issues. As pointed out by some of our diplomats, a temporary member status allows learning the machinery and practice for potential crises.
In Postimees last year, international law professor Lauri Mälksoo wrote that «no matter how critically we look at UN at present, there will always be a need for some measure of order and predictability, towards which the UN does continually labour.»