I think this argument is a bit superficial and I don't find it convincing at all. The author cited the Alma-Ata Protocols as a basis for Russia being able to ex

I think this argument is a bit superficial and I don't find it convincing at all. The author cited the Alma-Ata Protocols as a basis for Russia being able to exercise the USSR's USNC seat. Point 1 of Annex V here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N91/425/70/IMG/N9142570.pdf https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N91/425/70/IMG... But he doesn't even mention in passing that Russia is now in open violation of the same Protocols. This is a new development, so invoking the laches-type "But it's been thirty years!" argument falls flat. At most it's been just shy of 8 years, and that's if new violations don't give rise to a new legal basis for objection under this bizarre laches-type analysis (they do give rise to a new cause of action in laches analysis of civil liability at common law, though that's not remotely controlling). The author also glosses over the Republic of China / People's Republic of China issue. Under UNGAR 1668 and UNGAR 2758, the question of which government should be recognized as representing a UN member state is an "important question" and should be settled by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. That did happen with the ROC → PRC issue, but never happened for Russia. Lastly, while true that the larger part of a continuing state generally gets to maintain that state's position, that is only when the same political and legal entity continues in existence. For example, if California seceded from the U.S., nothing would happen to the U.S.'s permanent seat; but if the U.S. entirely dissolved, it wouldn't automatically go to California, it would simply cease to exist. Russia is not the USSR, and in fact Russia wasn't even the last to leave the USSR (Kazakhstan seceded 4 days after Russia did), and the USSR no longer exists as a political entity. Bottom line is that Russia's "continuance of the membership of the [USSR] in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council," is a product of an international agreement that, as of 24 February 2022, Russia has torn to shreds and set on fire. In my view, there's a strong argument that Russia has de facto withdrawn from it and should no longer benefit from it.