General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn as civil a manner as I can manage, let me ask a "naive" question: why is
Russia still on the UN Security Council? For that matter, why are they in the UN? As the Ukrainian rep asked "Who voted to admit RUSSIA? The answer, I believe, is "no one".
Why have we not taken whatever steps are necessary to bring this issue to a vote of the entire assembly?
Russia's participation in world "security" issues is transparently ridiculous and must have people in all nations shaking their heads in disbelief.

Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Not sure that there is a mechanism on the UN Charter to remove a permanent member of the Security Council.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)For that matter, China would almost certainly do so as well.
H2O Man
(76,729 posts)Caliman73
(11,767 posts)You asked a question. I answered. Just like there is no mechanism for reversing the results of an American election, there does not appear to be a mechanism to kick Russia off the Security Council.
Can there be in the future? Sure. Will there be? Extremely Unlikely.
allegorical oracle
(4,837 posts)Russia launched its Ukraine invasion, Russia's rep was President of the Security Council. It's a one-month rotation that starts on the first day of each month.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russias-diplomat-charge-un-security-045222994.html
Response to Caliman73 (Reply #13)
Mary in S. Carolina This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Caliman73 (Reply #1)
Mary in S. Carolina This message was self-deleted by its author.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Like I said in my other responses however, it is highly unlikely.
delisen
(6,977 posts)Caliman73
(11,767 posts)I am not condoning the situation, merely stating what the situation is.
I know that Ukraine and others are now questioning the transfer, as Russia was not the only country in the USSR. The problem is that Russia was by far the dominant political entity in the USSR and historically, everyone equated the USSR with Russia.
Like I said, certainly possible, but highly unlikely to get Russia off the Security Council.
11 Bravo
(24,106 posts)After the collapse and break-up of the USSR, the nation known as "Russia" was never formally voted into the UN.
At least that's the argument put forth by the Ukrainian delegate to that body.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)I am not holding my breath that Russia will be kicked off of the Security Council.
I think that it would be justified and deserved, but simply think that there is not the political will to do it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)that buys you a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
OneBlueDotS-Carolina
(1,455 posts)The US, France, UK, Russia & China are the five permanent members of the security council.
Other countries are elected for terms.
There is some confusion currently as to Russia's seat. That will become interesting in the coming months.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)OneBlueDotS-Carolina
(1,455 posts)was the US, the five were the victors after WWII.
Pakistan & India are also declared nuclear powers.
Bernardo de La Paz
(55,392 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(55,392 posts)msfiddlestix
(8,057 posts)of what the UN is supposed to be about.
Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)It's never been. It has a few good functions but fails miserably at controlling rogue nations behavior.
msfiddlestix
(8,057 posts)relayerbob
(7,175 posts)After all, it was the USSR that was granted the permanent seat, not the runt Russia. Why shouldn't Ukraine or Estonia or one of the other countries that made up the USSR? (Short answer - nuclear weapons). In fact, after the USSR dissolved, each of the subsequent countries had to be admitted, EXCEPT Russia. When other countries, such as Czechoslovakia, broke up, each had to join separately. Therefore, Russia, as a separate nation, has never actually been admitted in any way, much less as a permanent member. In fact, the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN specifically asked the General Assembly, who voted for Russia to be in the UN. No one raised their hands.
However, despite the legalese involved, they aren't going anywhere soon.
SheltieLover
(67,648 posts)Ukraine has questioned the legitimacy.
I hope they kick Russia out!
OneBlueDotS-Carolina
(1,455 posts)Ukraine is asking for papers, votes a resolution that gave the Russian Federation the USSR's permanent seat. UN is stalling.
JustAnotherGen
(34,878 posts)Asked to 'see the memos' regarding Russia's permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Basically - the UN gave in without question in 1991 when Russia decided that it was the country to get the seat after the USSR was broken down to 15 countries.
No expert - but here's a reference to this:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-russia-un-security-council-ukraine-20220228-5ftidozwlbdx5k2ex6qera5skm-story.html
Your question isn't naive - just my opinion. I would like to see their presence challenged and debated at the UN. Just because they 'said so' - doesn't mean it is true.
bluewater
(5,420 posts)
Nevilledog
(54,289 posts)6,257 nuclear warheads
The current Russian nuclear arsenal is the largest, followed by the USA. If Russia and the USA go to war, there will always be a theoretical chance for nuclear war once again. Russia has 6,257 nuclear warheads of which 1,456 are currently deployed.1
Still enough to end life as we know it.
bluewater
(5,420 posts)The RS-28 Sarmat[24] (Russian: РС-28 Сармат; NATO reporting name: SATAN 2), is a Russian liquid-fueled, MIRV-equipped, super-heavy thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile in development by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau[24] from 2009,[25] intended to replace the previous R-36 missile. Its large payload would allow for up to 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones,[26] or a combination of warheads and massive amounts of countermeasures designed to defeat anti-missile systems;[27][28] it was heralded by the Russian military as a response to the U.S. Prompt Global Strike.[29]
In 2015, information emerged that Russia may be developing a new nuclear torpedo, the Status-6 Ocean Multipurpose System,[30][31][32] codenamed "Kanyon" by Pentagon officials.[33][34] This weapon is designed to create a tsunami wave up to 500m tall that will radioactively contaminate a wide area on an enemy coasts with cobalt-60, and to be immune to anti-missile defense systems such as laser weapons and railguns that might disable an ICBM.[31][32][34][35][36] Two potential carrier submarines, the Project 09852 Belgorod, and the Project 09851 Khabarovsk, are new boats laid down in 2012 and 2014 respectively.[33][34][37] Status 6 appears to be a deterrent weapon of last resort.[36][37] It appears to be a torpedo-shaped robotic mini-submarine, that can travel at speeds of 185 km/h (100 kn).[36][37][38] More recent information suggests a top speed of 100 km/h (54 kn), with a range of 10,000 km (6,200 mi) and a depth maximum of 1,000 m (3,300 ft).[39] This underwater drone is cloaked by stealth technology to elude acoustic tracking devices.[31][37]
During an annual state-of-the-nation address given on March 1, 2018, President Vladimir Putin publicly claimed that Russia was now in possession of several new classes of nuclear weapons, including some with capabilities previously speculated to exist. Putin discussed several new or upgraded weapons, including a hypersonic glide vehicle known as the Avangard capable of performing sharp maneuvers while traveling at 20 times the speed of sound making it "absolutely invulnerable for any missile defense system."[40] Putin also discussed the existence of a nuclear powered underwater torpedo and a nuclear powered cruise missile (9M730 Burevestnik), both with effectively unlimited range. He also discussed that Russia had tested a new class of traditional ICBM called the Sarmat, which expanded upon the range and carrying capability of the Soviet-era Satan ICBM. Animations of these weapons were shown in front of the live and televised audience, and Putin suggested that an online poll be conducted to give them official public names.[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_arsenal_of_Russia
Thanks for pointing out the correct number.
So, re-phrasing,
Short Answer: Russia is one of the two most powerful nuclear powers with enough deployed weapons to destroy the world.

Tetrachloride
(8,692 posts)Nato does what the UN cant.
Wingus Dingus
(8,962 posts)Makes a mockery of the whole body.
Joinfortmill
(17,969 posts)Bev54
(12,421 posts)I am not sure why we even have them anymore. Not just why is Russia there but why were they ever given veto power? Useless, only provides jobs to people who do nothing. My friend worked for years for the UN doing bomb disposal in Afghanistan. He is Irish, and for years had difficulty with his pay from the UN and then for his pension when he left. He had nothing good to say about the organization.