277
Zelensky, in UN showdown, says strip ‘criminal’ Russia of veto power
(ptv-news.com.pk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
277 points (96.0% liked)
World News
32359 readers
362 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I dunno how they're gonna go about that considering Russia could just veto that attempt to strip them lol and citing PRCs permanent security councils seat is just silly.
Strip Russia of its veto power and give it to the PRC. Xi can have two vetoes, as a treat.
Because that is not Russia's seat. It's the Soviet Union's seat. They left the Soviet Union in 1990. In fact, Ukraine left after them, so they have a better claim to the UN seat.
Russia took on all the debts and obligations if the USSR so they got the seat.
If by "debts and obligations" you mean nukes. That makes total sense.
That's part of it
Good thing we already have a precedent to change what state the UN recognizes as representative of a country without going through the security council then.
They got the seat because they said they did, and no one challenged it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
The UN could kick them off the Security Council if they want. They are not the same country and they are not contributing to world security. This their membership on the Security Council is tenuous.
Russia is breaking current rules that outline which wars are legal and which are not. Wars of aggression are illegal. Even Putin agrees with me. Here's Putin's opinion on war and the UN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
Those 11 nations consented to them taking on that role. Realistically no one else could have afforded taking responsibility for debts or maintenance of the nuke stockpile.
Those are not qualifications for world leadership. Even if they were, Putin has not met his own qualifications for a legal war. Since he and his country are engaged in an illegal war, they should be removed from the Security Council.
They are qualifications for taking over the position of the USSR which member nations approved of at the time.
Under the illegal war logic most permanent members of the security council should be renoved.
None of the other Security Council members have both problems though. You do not get to be a leader based on a technicality. You have to display leadership.
Russia can't even lead their own troops in their own country. They just had unfriendly tanks outside Moscow and Putin had to run away. How can they claim international leadership?
That argument might have made sense if it were being made in like 1992 but it's been Russia's seat for over 30 years
It is.
And the Russian Federation (formerly the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) is the legal successor to the Soviet Union.
The Russian SFSR never "left" or "declared independence from" the Soviet Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic
The UN disagrees, sorry.
Of course they declared independence. They're no longer part of it.
Russia left the USSR on June 12 1990 and declared independence on December 12 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
The CIS replaced the USSR. Russia was only one of the signatories. They are not the only successor entity.
Because of this war, they've lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.
So you should be able to show me this alleged declaration of independence, right?
According to whom, you?
For both dates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords
Clear enough for you? The CIS is the successor to the USSR, not Russia.
So they didn't declare "independence" from the USSR like the other republics, thanks for making my point for me.
Correct, not until the second document they signed in 1991 and agreed that the Soviet Union was dissolved and the CIS was its successor. Not Russia.
Where is this written? Can you give me a direct quote instead of pretending that your interpretation of the documents (which goes against the interpretation by all CIS parties and the United Nations at the time) is correct?
Kazakhstan will rise again!