5 ms·

The whole point of the UN is to avoid a major war between nuclear states. It is not a reward for countries that happen to share our values. The UN was designe

The whole point of the UN is to avoid a major war between nuclear states. It is not a reward for countries that happen to share our values. The UN was designed to permanently cement the post-WW2 powers as the major powers, and to provide a forum for them to resolve major differences rather than feel like they have to resort to lobbing atom bombs at one another. Everything else the UN does - from the participation of small states to the very important humanitarian initiatives - is of secondary concern.

T-A 4y ago
Russia would still sit in the UN's General Assembly. This proposal is about removing its veto power in the Security Council.
krn 4y ago
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Unless Russia used a nuke this month, I think you've missed his point?
  - krn 4y ago
    It's just a question of time when tactical nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine, if Ukraine continues with the successful offensive[1]. Also, Russia is not even a world superpower: neither economically, nor militarily. It could easily be replaced by India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/27/russia-putin-tactical-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-robert-baer-ovn-intl-hnk-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/27/russia-putin...
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      I have to disagree... Personally I don't think it IS just a matter of time before nukes are used. Putin is not a nice guy, but he isn't a comic book villain. Plus this is a ground war, so any nuke ruins the land they're fighting over and kills as many of their own troops (who aren't exactly equipped for basic fighting, let alone fallout) Russia has enough nukes (almost 6000, and the ability to deliver them) to annihilate any other country, and put the whole planet into nuclear winter. That makes them a super power, even if they cannot win a ground war with Ukraine. For reference, India only has 160 https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear... Also, given it's history of annexing it's neighbours and conflicts with China and Pakistan (both also nuclear states) India is a very poor candidate for Security Council membership (at least as a "better" substitute for Russia).
      - krn 4y ago
        > Personally I don't think it IS just a matter of time before nukes are used. Putin is not a nice guy, but he isn't a comic book villain. Whenever somebody said that "Putin is not that crazy to do X" – he eventually did exactly that. Hear it from the Russian soldiers themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/russian-soldiers-phone-calls-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/... The thing is, he might have no other choice: he is a strongman, and for any strongman loosing a war would mean the end of being in power. > Plus this is a ground war, so any nuke ruins the land they're fighting over and kills as many of their own troops (who aren't exactly equipped for basic fighting, let alone fallout) If you know the history of the Soviet Union, you know that they don't care about the lives of their own people, at all. How many Soviet soldiers died in WWII? About 10M. How many Russians soldiers died in the past 7 months alone? Between 50-80K. > Russia has enough nukes (almost 6000, and the ability to deliver them) to annihilate any other country, and put the whole planet into nuclear winter. That makes them a super power, even if they cannot win a ground war with Ukraine. For reference, India only has 160 Many analysts point out, that all the Russian nukes are from the 1960s-1980s, and given the state of all their military equipment during the invasion there is an extremely high likelihood of complete failure to deliver any threat at all.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        >How many Russians soldiers died in the past 7 months alone? Between 50-80K. Those are Ukrainian reports. US reports put the number at 15k, Russian reports put it at 5k. I find it kind of astonishing people are citing Ukrainian numbers as anything short of blatant propaganda, just like Russian ones. https://fortune.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-russia-death-tolls-misinformation-find-your-own/ https://fortune.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-russia-death-tolls-mi...
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        I doubt there’s only 15k casualties on the Russian side of war. I could believe 15k deaths, I’d peg the casualties at 50-80k easily. If there’s so few casualties of the initial invading force it makes absolutely no sense for putin to start mobilisation, which he did.
- mritun 4y ago
  That’s backwards. Russia didn’t gain military power to invade Ukraine from UN, it is in UN because it already possessed the military power. Now, you can say that UN failed to prevent the invasion and do its job, but expelling Russia means you’re left with no forum for dialogs and negotiations. Contrary to the scenes made out of the sabre-rattling in public, it all comes down to money and power - and those things get negotiated in private in these forums.
  - krn 4y ago
    > Russia didn’t gain military power to invade Ukraine from UN, it is in UN because it already possessed the military power. Russia has no real military power, as the last 7 months have shown us. It was not even a founding member of the UN Security Council – the Soviet Union, a real world superpower, was. > Now, you can say that UN failed to prevent the invasion and do its job, but expelling Russia means you’re left with no forum for dialogs and negotiations. That's exactly my point: the UN failed to prevent the invasion, because the invading country had a veto right in all of its decisions. Any dialogs or negotiations with Russia are an illusion of naive Western powers who don't understand how Russia really works: it doesn't care about or respect any international agreements it signs. Source: I was born in the Soviet Union.
    - zardo 4y ago
      What's the concept of the security council? Russia loses a war to Ukraine so it loses it's seat? Does it go to Ukraine? Or maybe it should go to Afghanistan because of the failed Soviet invasion.
      - mcv 4y ago
        The seat doesn't belong to Afghanistan nor to Russia, but to the USSR. Ukraine was as much a member state of the USSR as Russia. If the UN decides that Ukraine is a more legitimate representative of the USSR than Russia is, it can decide to let Ukraine fill the seat.
        4y ago

T-A 4y ago

Russia would still sit in the UN's General Assembly. This proposal is about removing its veto power in the Security Council.

krn 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago
Unless Russia used a nuke this month, I think you've missed his point?
- krn 4y ago
  It's just a question of time when tactical nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine, if Ukraine continues with the successful offensive[1]. Also, Russia is not even a world superpower: neither economically, nor militarily. It could easily be replaced by India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/27/russia-putin-tactical-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-robert-baer-ovn-intl-hnk-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/27/russia-putin...
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    I have to disagree... Personally I don't think it IS just a matter of time before nukes are used. Putin is not a nice guy, but he isn't a comic book villain. Plus this is a ground war, so any nuke ruins the land they're fighting over and kills as many of their own troops (who aren't exactly equipped for basic fighting, let alone fallout) Russia has enough nukes (almost 6000, and the ability to deliver them) to annihilate any other country, and put the whole planet into nuclear winter. That makes them a super power, even if they cannot win a ground war with Ukraine. For reference, India only has 160 https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear... Also, given it's history of annexing it's neighbours and conflicts with China and Pakistan (both also nuclear states) India is a very poor candidate for Security Council membership (at least as a "better" substitute for Russia).
    - krn 4y ago
      > Personally I don't think it IS just a matter of time before nukes are used. Putin is not a nice guy, but he isn't a comic book villain. Whenever somebody said that "Putin is not that crazy to do X" – he eventually did exactly that. Hear it from the Russian soldiers themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/russian-soldiers-phone-calls-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/... The thing is, he might have no other choice: he is a strongman, and for any strongman loosing a war would mean the end of being in power. > Plus this is a ground war, so any nuke ruins the land they're fighting over and kills as many of their own troops (who aren't exactly equipped for basic fighting, let alone fallout) If you know the history of the Soviet Union, you know that they don't care about the lives of their own people, at all. How many Soviet soldiers died in WWII? About 10M. How many Russians soldiers died in the past 7 months alone? Between 50-80K. > Russia has enough nukes (almost 6000, and the ability to deliver them) to annihilate any other country, and put the whole planet into nuclear winter. That makes them a super power, even if they cannot win a ground war with Ukraine. For reference, India only has 160 Many analysts point out, that all the Russian nukes are from the 1960s-1980s, and given the state of all their military equipment during the invasion there is an extremely high likelihood of complete failure to deliver any threat at all.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        >How many Russians soldiers died in the past 7 months alone? Between 50-80K. Those are Ukrainian reports. US reports put the number at 15k, Russian reports put it at 5k. I find it kind of astonishing people are citing Ukrainian numbers as anything short of blatant propaganda, just like Russian ones. https://fortune.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-russia-death-tolls-misinformation-find-your-own/ https://fortune.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-russia-death-tolls-mi...
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        I doubt there’s only 15k casualties on the Russian side of war. I could believe 15k deaths, I’d peg the casualties at 50-80k easily. If there’s so few casualties of the initial invading force it makes absolutely no sense for putin to start mobilisation, which he did.
mritun 4y ago
That’s backwards. Russia didn’t gain military power to invade Ukraine from UN, it is in UN because it already possessed the military power. Now, you can say that UN failed to prevent the invasion and do its job, but expelling Russia means you’re left with no forum for dialogs and negotiations. Contrary to the scenes made out of the sabre-rattling in public, it all comes down to money and power - and those things get negotiated in private in these forums.
- krn 4y ago
  > Russia didn’t gain military power to invade Ukraine from UN, it is in UN because it already possessed the military power. Russia has no real military power, as the last 7 months have shown us. It was not even a founding member of the UN Security Council – the Soviet Union, a real world superpower, was. > Now, you can say that UN failed to prevent the invasion and do its job, but expelling Russia means you’re left with no forum for dialogs and negotiations. That's exactly my point: the UN failed to prevent the invasion, because the invading country had a veto right in all of its decisions. Any dialogs or negotiations with Russia are an illusion of naive Western powers who don't understand how Russia really works: it doesn't care about or respect any international agreements it signs. Source: I was born in the Soviet Union.
  - zardo 4y ago
    What's the concept of the security council? Russia loses a war to Ukraine so it loses it's seat? Does it go to Ukraine? Or maybe it should go to Afghanistan because of the failed Soviet invasion.
    - mcv 4y ago
      The seat doesn't belong to Afghanistan nor to Russia, but to the USSR. Ukraine was as much a member state of the USSR as Russia. If the UN decides that Ukraine is a more legitimate representative of the USSR than Russia is, it can decide to let Ukraine fill the seat.
      - 4y ago