3 ms·
"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 reco
by 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 agoGiven 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 agoWhat 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 agoThe 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?