"The objective of some" is another way of saying "I have no justification for this but want to say it anyways." Useless conspiracy theorizing and straw-manning.
The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
I did name names, right there in my post. So did the article. But clearly I should have known better than to have used 'world government', too much of a loaded, and lazy, term. But I do think there is a push to increase the UN's power in the world, to the point where some or all of it is binding.
If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet.
Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
Russia and China have no interest in increasing the power of the UN; they want to increase their own power relative to other nations, and in this particular case they think that the UN will be a useful channel to do so.
In other situations Russia and China fight to reduce the power of the UN. Mostly situations where western powers are seeking UN legitimacy for piercing national sovereignty, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Today Russia opposed UN intervention in Syria, and I think China does as well.
The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.