Perhaps its time to rethink whhether Russia's claim to a permanent seat on UN is legitimate.

[Ms. Toad]

It is the USSR which has a permanent seat, not Russia. Russia claimed the seat as a continuation of the USSR, when the rest of the states broke away (which retains the rights and obligations of the whole), when it was more likely a successor state (a new, independent state which does not derive its rights and obligations from the prior whole))

But why did Russia get the USSR’s seat following its dissolution? In 1991, the Alma-Ata Protocol was signed by the majority of Soviet republics, declaring the end of the Soviet Union and agreeing that Russia would take over the USSR’s seat. Russia then wrote to the UN requesting that the name USSR be amended to Russian Federation and that nothing else would change.

International lawyers have questioned the legality of this and have debated whether the dissolution of the USSR should have dissolved its seat at the Security Council. This is what Ukraine is now arguing. The whole matter rested on whether Russia was the “Successor State” or a “Continuing State” under international law. In 1991, Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko – a recent Russian ambassador to the UK who was at that time a mid-level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow – wrote to argue that Russia should inherit the permanent seat.

He set out that a Successor State is a new country formed from the dissolution of an older one – and had no continuing rights or liabilities. All rights and liabilities would need to be renegotiated. A Continuing State, however, is the largest part of a country after a small part has broken away. It keeps the former rights and liabilities of the old country – including membership to international organisations and embassies. Yakovenko concluded Russia was the Continuing State.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-invasion-should-russia-lose-its-seat-on-the-un-security-council-177870

[Ocelot II]

1. The UN, not NATO.

[dalton99a]

2. +1

[Ms. Toad]

6. Thanks for the correction. n/t

[Kaleva]

3. I think you mean the UN Security Council and not NATO

[Bongo Prophet]

4. A permanent seat on UN Sec Council, not NATO, as in your title. Or am I learning something new here?

I'm thinking typo, which happens to us all (looks in mirror to check. Yep.)

[Ms. Toad]

7. Typo. I've now corrected it. n/t

[asiliveandbreathe]

5. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary action..it wasn't the UN or NATO

or the EU or the US who broke proticol, if that is how it is seen - it was PUTIN, not Russia, PUTIN..thus - 'tis time to ACT by ALL..

[Ms. Toad]

8. The decision was made long before Putin came along.

Essentially the decision came in the early 90s - when the Soviet Union broke up, and the UN acquiesced to Russia's declaration that it was the continuation of the USSR, rather than a new successor state (which would not have been entitled to the seat).