31 ms·

Russia Has Illegally Gained UN Security Council Seat. It Should Be Fixed

bob66 5y ago
belter 5y ago
The UN is not a world police. It exists so that Nations have a formal forum. And the reason why some have a veto, is so that when a resolution gets approved, you can really be sure it will be applied by all parties. It's an error to see it as some kind of court where you are able to enforce your decisions.Maybe it can become that in the future, but for sure the US will be the first country to opt out ;-) Instead, is a venue for formal diplomatic communication.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  As a Hungarian I see that all tiny symbolic international gestures against my official president (Viktor Orban, a soft dictator for the last 12 years, who just visited Putin a few weeks ago) helps us to finally increase the chances of unseating him. At the same time Putin still has nuclear weapons, so the risks of kicking him out of international organizations is much higher.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    By that standard, aren't you saying North Korea should be admitted to the UN?
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      It has been. The standard of admission is generally 'internationally recognised state', not 'good government'.
  - belter 5y ago
    Even him turned on Putin: "Hungary Won't Block Any Sanctions Against Russia, PM Orban Says" https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-26/hungary-wont-block-any-sanctions-against-russia-pm-orban-says https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-26/hungar...
    - xiphias2 5y ago
      It's not the first time he changed his mind in a day. Luckily he understands that we need NATO support or Russia would take over Hungary easily.
- vba616 5y ago
  Yeah, so why isn't India a permanent member? They're much larger, second only to China, and have nukes.
  - belter 5y ago
    At the time of formation of the United Nations India was not an independent country. The acceptance of India as a permanent member has been raised on and off by several countries always with sympathetic tones. It's an historical accident.
  - fulvioterzapi 5y ago
    Permanent members are not determined looking at who's bigger, or who has nukes. Permanent members are the five biggest winners of WW2.
    - vba616 5y ago
      Your theory differs from the GP so better to address them than me.
      - fulvioterzapi 5y ago
        It's not a theory, it's a well established fact that you can easily find on Wikipedia: "The permanent members were all allies in World War II (and the victors of that war)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...
        vba616 5y ago
        Please stop telling me why belter's premise is wrong. You can't debate me about a premise introduced by another person. You have to resolve the issue with them. I already made a comment that is based a premise (dudul's) that seems similar to yours, instead of belter's. Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411
oofabz 5y ago
Russia is the legitimate successor state of the Soviet Union. The article implies that the correct procedure for succession was not followed, but this is not true. When a country splits up, as the USSR did, the legal precedent is for all of the resulting states to come to an agreement on succession. They did, recognizing Russia as the successor. Yugoslavia followed the same procedure, although they came to a more complex agreement with multiple successors.
- mtmail 5y ago
  There's a (far right) movement in Germany that believes the current Germany is not the successor of the Third Reich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany does into many legal details but it can be similar summaries as: yes of course it's the successor.
- danaris 5y ago
  Then where's the evidence to prove this? That's specifically what Sydorenko is saying doesn't appear to exist, or if it does, is being kept secret for unclear reasons.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >Then where's the evidence to prove this? The behavior of every nation in the UN over the last 30 years which has accepted them as such on the Security Council?
    - danaris 5y ago
      There's a difference between acceptance and formal admittance.
      - yucky 5y ago
        No there isn't, the UN has recognized their Security Council votes as legitimate for 30 years, so there is no argument.
peppermint_tea 5y ago
"Article 4 of the Charter states that any peaceful state can become a member of the UN. Being peaceful is a requirement." we should probably remove a couple of countries from the UN
- fulvioterzapi 5y ago
  > we should probably remove a couple of countries from the UN The United Nations is essentially a diplomatic forum. Once you remove Russia and the United States as non-peaceful countries, any feeble hope of a diplomatic solution is completely gone. There's little to lose, but nothing to gain.
dudul 5y ago
"Being peaceful is a requirement" I mean, I think we can dissolve the Security Council at this point. What an idiotic article. Russia was internationally recognized as the successor of the former USSR.
- vba616 5y ago
  Given all of the rationales mentioned in this thread, how can you justify Russia being a permanent member and not India? I believe that India was refusing to condemn the invasion, so it might also be a strategic move by NATO-aligned members to consider adding them.
  - dudul 5y ago
    What does it have to do with the article? Permanent members are the victors of WWII, that's all. USSR won WWII, so they were part of it. Russia is the successor of the USSR so they got their seat. Nothing to do with India. We can discuss changing the composition of the council, or even getting rid of the "permanent member" status, but that has nothing to do with why Russia is a member today.
    - vba616 5y ago
      The USSR should not be considered a "victor" of WWII because they did not choose the Allied side, it was chosen for them, and most of the suffering was a consequence of Soviet leadership, while the ability to resist the Nazi invasion was due to incomprehensibly large amounts of supplies from the Allies. "USSR won WWII" is from the imaginary world of Russian nationalist speechifying, where the Nazi-Soviet pact and Allied aid are taboo to mention. And India...India achieved independence due to WWII, so who says they weren't a victor?
fulvioterzapi 5y ago
I don't like Putin, I condemn Russia's aggression to Ukraine, but this is essentially anti-Russian propaganda. The international consensus is that Russia is the legitimate successor of the Soviet Union.
teslaberri 5y ago
i have never seen more stupid propaganda all at once than in the last week. this is what you call and 'intellectual internationalist' form of propaganda for idiots. oh yes, let's just disband the security counsel, that way we can rely on generals in stead of statesmen and diplomats to discuss in a very civil and calm manner how to plan to NOT have nuclear war between nuclear armed nations. whatever you call the u.n. it is a bullshit corrupted formality. the u.n. is useless. the only thing of signficance is a forum for civil discussion between NON overtly military states-craft experts---to discuss the prevention of nuclear war. beause once they stop-----the generals begin discussing how to trick one another into being vulnerable to nuclear war, while their war planners prepare. it is as if the moron propagandists of the world would have everyon believe nuclear war is impossible and that no, of course, superpowers could have limited direct combat without risking nuclear escalation. yes....why not. why not dumb down our own populations this much. nothing bad could result.
hogrider 5y ago
What a dumb angle. No one can dispute they are the successors of the USSR. what is the alternative, having every single ex soviet republic there?

The UN is not a world police. It exists so that Nations have a formal forum. And the reason why some have a veto, is so that when a resolution gets approved, you can really be sure it will be applied by all parties. It's an error to see it as some kind of court where you are able to enforce your decisions.Maybe it can become that in the future, but for sure the US will be the first country to opt out ;-) Instead, is a venue for formal diplomatic communication.

xiphias2 5y ago
As a Hungarian I see that all tiny symbolic international gestures against my official president (Viktor Orban, a soft dictator for the last 12 years, who just visited Putin a few weeks ago) helps us to finally increase the chances of unseating him. At the same time Putin still has nuclear weapons, so the risks of kicking him out of international organizations is much higher.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  By that standard, aren't you saying North Korea should be admitted to the UN?
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    It has been. The standard of admission is generally 'internationally recognised state', not 'good government'.
- belter 5y ago
  Even him turned on Putin: "Hungary Won't Block Any Sanctions Against Russia, PM Orban Says" https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-26/hungary-wont-block-any-sanctions-against-russia-pm-orban-says https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-26/hungar...
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    It's not the first time he changed his mind in a day. Luckily he understands that we need NATO support or Russia would take over Hungary easily.
vba616 5y ago
Yeah, so why isn't India a permanent member? They're much larger, second only to China, and have nukes.
- belter 5y ago
  At the time of formation of the United Nations India was not an independent country. The acceptance of India as a permanent member has been raised on and off by several countries always with sympathetic tones. It's an historical accident.
- fulvioterzapi 5y ago
  Permanent members are not determined looking at who's bigger, or who has nukes. Permanent members are the five biggest winners of WW2.
  - vba616 5y ago
    Your theory differs from the GP so better to address them than me.
    - fulvioterzapi 5y ago
      It's not a theory, it's a well established fact that you can easily find on Wikipedia: "The permanent members were all allies in World War II (and the victors of that war)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...
      - vba616 5y ago
        Please stop telling me why belter's premise is wrong. You can't debate me about a premise introduced by another person. You have to resolve the issue with them. I already made a comment that is based a premise (dudul's) that seems similar to yours, instead of belter's. Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411

oofabz 5y ago

Russia is the legitimate successor state of the Soviet Union. The article implies that the correct procedure for succession was not followed, but this is not true. When a country splits up, as the USSR did, the legal precedent is for all of the resulting states to come to an agreement on succession. They did, recognizing Russia as the successor. Yugoslavia followed the same procedure, although they came to a more complex agreement with multiple successors.

mtmail 5y ago
There's a (far right) movement in Germany that believes the current Germany is not the successor of the Third Reich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany does into many legal details but it can be similar summaries as: yes of course it's the successor.
danaris 5y ago
Then where's the evidence to prove this? That's specifically what Sydorenko is saying doesn't appear to exist, or if it does, is being kept secret for unclear reasons.
- yucky 5y ago
  >Then where's the evidence to prove this? The behavior of every nation in the UN over the last 30 years which has accepted them as such on the Security Council?
  - danaris 5y ago
    There's a difference between acceptance and formal admittance.
    - yucky 5y ago
      No there isn't, the UN has recognized their Security Council votes as legitimate for 30 years, so there is no argument.

peppermint_tea 5y ago

"Article 4 of the Charter states that any peaceful state can become a member of the UN. Being peaceful is a requirement." we should probably remove a couple of countries from the UN

fulvioterzapi 5y ago
> we should probably remove a couple of countries from the UN The United Nations is essentially a diplomatic forum. Once you remove Russia and the United States as non-peaceful countries, any feeble hope of a diplomatic solution is completely gone. There's little to lose, but nothing to gain.

dudul 5y ago

"Being peaceful is a requirement" I mean, I think we can dissolve the Security Council at this point. What an idiotic article. Russia was internationally recognized as the successor of the former USSR.

vba616 5y ago
Given all of the rationales mentioned in this thread, how can you justify Russia being a permanent member and not India? I believe that India was refusing to condemn the invasion, so it might also be a strategic move by NATO-aligned members to consider adding them.
- dudul 5y ago
  What does it have to do with the article? Permanent members are the victors of WWII, that's all. USSR won WWII, so they were part of it. Russia is the successor of the USSR so they got their seat. Nothing to do with India. We can discuss changing the composition of the council, or even getting rid of the "permanent member" status, but that has nothing to do with why Russia is a member today.
  - vba616 5y ago
    The USSR should not be considered a "victor" of WWII because they did not choose the Allied side, it was chosen for them, and most of the suffering was a consequence of Soviet leadership, while the ability to resist the Nazi invasion was due to incomprehensibly large amounts of supplies from the Allies. "USSR won WWII" is from the imaginary world of Russian nationalist speechifying, where the Nazi-Soviet pact and Allied aid are taboo to mention. And India...India achieved independence due to WWII, so who says they weren't a victor?

fulvioterzapi 5y ago

I don't like Putin, I condemn Russia's aggression to Ukraine, but this is essentially anti-Russian propaganda. The international consensus is that Russia is the legitimate successor of the Soviet Union.

teslaberri 5y ago

i have never seen more stupid propaganda all at once than in the last week. this is what you call and 'intellectual internationalist' form of propaganda for idiots. oh yes, let's just disband the security counsel, that way we can rely on generals in stead of statesmen and diplomats to discuss in a very civil and calm manner how to plan to NOT have nuclear war between nuclear armed nations. whatever you call the u.n. it is a bullshit corrupted formality. the u.n. is useless. the only thing of signficance is a forum for civil discussion between NON overtly military states-craft experts---to discuss the prevention of nuclear war. beause once they stop-----the generals begin discussing how to trick one another into being vulnerable to nuclear war, while their war planners prepare. it is as if the moron propagandists of the world would have everyon believe nuclear war is impossible and that no, of course, superpowers could have limited direct combat without risking nuclear escalation. yes....why not. why not dumb down our own populations this much. nothing bad could result.

hogrider 5y ago

What a dumb angle. No one can dispute they are the successors of the USSR. what is the alternative, having every single ex soviet republic there?