Intergovernmental organizations do many different things for the international world. They produce collective goods, mediate, provide information and even authorize retaliation. One of the fundamental ideas behind IGOs ​​is that states will value their membership and will want to comply and help secure their membership and allegiance to the IGO as well as other members. Therefore, in a perfect world, if all states respected the IGO guidelines, there would be little to no conflict. Naturally this does not always happen and unfortunately failure to comply with the rules can create conflicts. A recent example of this is Russia, its invasion and attempt to annex Crimea. To understand how this situation is an example of how IGOs ​​do not always reduce conflict, we must fully understand the problem at hand. Crimea is the southern part of the peninsula of Ukraine surrounded by the Black Sea. Recently Kremlin forces took control of the Crimean peninsula, and subsequently “the Russian-speaking majority of this area voted to join Russia in a referendum that Ukraine and the West consider illegal” (“Profile of Crimea”, 2014). It would not be the first time that Crimea has been part of Russia. In 1783 Crimea was annexed to the Russian Empire and was part of Russia for almost 200 years. In 1954 Russia was building two large canals across the border between Ukraine and Crimea. In an effort to speed up and organize the process, Russia handed over control of Crimea to Ukraine so that Ukraine could easily oversee the project until completion. Due to the move from the Ukrainian state to the Russian state and then back to the Ukrainian state, the inhabitants of Crimea identify themselves differently. Crimea's population is approximately two million, “58% identify as ethnic… middle of the paper… will make the smart decision and withdraw from Crimea, saving what little loyalty they may have left. On the other hand, if Russia continues to act as it has done so far, and carries out the invasion and annexation attempt, the severity could end up in a serious contradiction with the statement that “IGOs reduce conflict”. The severity of Russia's actions, if it does not choose to stop, is widely known because who knows if Russia will be content with getting Crimea on its own. The United States fears that “Russia's military intervention may soon expand to eastern Ukraine” (Arutunyan & Resneck, 2014) and perhaps beyond. Russia's choice to continue on this path could lead to a lack of credibility and trust in intergovernmental organizations. If a permanent member of the Security Council is willing to act against the advice of the council, what is he not willing to do?