Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:58 PM Mar 2022

In 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.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In as civil a manner as I can manage, let me ask a "naive" question: why is (Original Post) Atticus Mar 2022 OP
They are a permanent member. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #1
Things are permanent until they're not. nt Atticus Mar 2022 #2
Russia would simply veto any attempt to take them off the Security Council. Dial H For Hero Mar 2022 #11
That's the key: China H2O Man Mar 2022 #21
Perhaps. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #13
It is unlikely because it takes a unanimous vote to kick Russia out. Irony: At the time allegorical oracle Mar 2022 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author Mary in S. Carolina Mar 2022 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author Mary in S. Carolina Mar 2022 #18
I imagine it is possible. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #24
Was it not the USSR that was the permanent member ? nt delisen Mar 2022 #19
Yes, but that seat was apparently voted on to be passed to Russia. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #23
As I understand it, the Soviet Union was a permanent member. 11 Bravo Mar 2022 #34
I suppose that will be addressed. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #35
They're one of the five declared nuclear powers Spider Jerusalem Mar 2022 #3
No so... OneBlueDotS-Carolina Mar 2022 #12
Like I said (the US, UK, France, Russia and China are the five declared nuclear powers) Spider Jerusalem Mar 2022 #16
The only nuclear power when the UN was founded... OneBlueDotS-Carolina Mar 2022 #28
Utter nonsense. It does not buy a perm't seat. There are declared nuc powers that do not have seats. Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2022 #17
No, there aren't ("declared nuclear powers" refers to signatories of the Nonproliferation Treaty) Spider Jerusalem Mar 2022 #20
Your contention is still utter nonsense. If one signed, they would not get a seat. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2022 #22
Exactly. question I asked earlier.. I don't know how this work, but this seems anathema to the point msfiddlestix Mar 2022 #4
"what the UN is supposed to be about" Pantagruel Mar 2022 #8
That is the history and why it's reputation is so easily damaged.. perfect example as in the past. msfiddlestix Mar 2022 #14
Indeed, Ukraine is challenging this also relayerbob Mar 2022 #5
USSR had a seat that Russia took over SheltieLover Mar 2022 #6
They voted China (PROC) into The Repubic of China's, seat in 1971. OneBlueDotS-Carolina Mar 2022 #29
A few days ago the Ukraine Rep at the UN JustAnotherGen Mar 2022 #7
Short answer: Russia has 20,000 nuclear weapons. bluewater Mar 2022 #9
Not even close. Russia has 6,257 nuclear warheads of which 1,456 are currently deployed. Nevilledog Mar 2022 #26
You are correct the US and Russia both have about 1,600 nuclear warheads deployed bluewater Mar 2022 #27
The UN is useful as a place to blow off steam Tetrachloride Mar 2022 #10
Like installing a famous bank robber as sheriff. Wingus Dingus Mar 2022 #15
👍 Joinfortmill Mar 2022 #25
The UN is a useless bureaucracy and has been for many many years. Bev54 Mar 2022 #31
It is an interesting Question. The Soviet Union had a seat there. Not Russia. nt Gore1FL Mar 2022 #33

Caliman73

(11,725 posts)
1. They are a permanent member.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:59 PM
Mar 2022

Not sure that there is a mechanism on the UN Charter to remove a permanent member of the Security Council.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
11. Russia would simply veto any attempt to take them off the Security Council.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:08 PM
Mar 2022

For that matter, China would almost certainly do so as well.

Caliman73

(11,725 posts)
13. Perhaps.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:13 PM
Mar 2022

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

(2,357 posts)
30. It is unlikely because it takes a unanimous vote to kick Russia out. Irony: At the time
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:14 PM
Mar 2022

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)

Response to Caliman73 (Reply #1)

Caliman73

(11,725 posts)
23. Yes, but that seat was apparently voted on to be passed to Russia.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:43 PM
Mar 2022

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

(23,926 posts)
34. As I understand it, the Soviet Union was a permanent member.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 07:14 PM
Mar 2022

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

(11,725 posts)
35. I suppose that will be addressed.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 07:41 PM
Mar 2022

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)
3. They're one of the five declared nuclear powers
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:02 PM
Mar 2022

that buys you a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

OneBlueDotS-Carolina

(1,376 posts)
12. No so...
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:12 PM
Mar 2022

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.

OneBlueDotS-Carolina

(1,376 posts)
28. The only nuclear power when the UN was founded...
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:00 PM
Mar 2022

was the US, the five were the victors after WWII.

Pakistan & India are also declared nuclear powers.

msfiddlestix

(7,271 posts)
4. Exactly. question I asked earlier.. I don't know how this work, but this seems anathema to the point
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:04 PM
Mar 2022

of what the UN is supposed to be about.

 

Pantagruel

(2,580 posts)
8. "what the UN is supposed to be about"
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:07 PM
Mar 2022

It's never been. It has a few good functions but fails miserably at controlling rogue nations behavior.

relayerbob

(6,537 posts)
5. Indeed, Ukraine is challenging this also
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:04 PM
Mar 2022

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

(57,073 posts)
6. USSR had a seat that Russia took over
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:04 PM
Mar 2022

Ukraine has questioned the legitimacy.

I hope they kick Russia out!

OneBlueDotS-Carolina

(1,376 posts)
29. They voted China (PROC) into The Repubic of China's, seat in 1971.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:05 PM
Mar 2022

Ukraine is asking for papers, votes a resolution that gave the Russian Federation the USSR's permanent seat. UN is stalling.

JustAnotherGen

(31,780 posts)
7. A few days ago the Ukraine Rep at the UN
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:06 PM
Mar 2022

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.

Nevilledog

(51,006 posts)
26. Not even close. Russia has 6,257 nuclear warheads of which 1,456 are currently deployed.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:48 PM
Mar 2022

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

(5,376 posts)
27. You are correct the US and Russia both have about 1,600 nuclear warheads deployed
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:56 PM
Mar 2022
The exact number of nuclear warheads is a state secret and is therefore a matter of guesswork. As of 2022, the Federation of American Scientists estimates that Russia possesses 5,977 nuclear weapons, while the United States has 5,428; Russia and the U.S. each have about 1,600 active deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Russia's stockpile is growing in size, while the United States' is shrinking.[23]

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.

Bev54

(10,039 posts)
31. The UN is a useless bureaucracy and has been for many many years.
Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:15 PM
Mar 2022

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In as civil a manner as I...