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.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

There is, however, precedent: the UN General Assembly in 1971 stripped Taiwan of the veto power it held as the representative of China, handing it instead to the communist government of the mainland.

Strip Russia of its veto power and give it to the PRC. Xi can have two vetoes, as a treat.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Russia took on all the debts and obligations if the USSR so they got the seat.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They got the seat because they said they did, and no one challenged it:

Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President, informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the Security Council and all other UN organs would be continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

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:

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq, said on 19 December 2003 that "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognized as fair or justified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] Dienervent@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If by "debts and obligations" you mean nukes. That makes total sense.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

That's part of it

[–] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because that is not Russia’s seat.

It is.

It’s the Soviet Union’s seat.

And the Russian Federation (formerly the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) is the legal successor to the Soviet Union.

They left the Soviet Union in 1990.

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

they have a better claim to the UN seat.

The UN disagrees, sorry.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

The Belovezha Accords were signed on 8 December by President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, President Kravchuk of Ukraine, and Chairman Shushkevich of Belarus, recognizing each other's independence and creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.

Because of this war, they've lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.

[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course they declared independence.

So you should be able to show me this alleged declaration of independence, right?

Because of this war, they’ve lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.

According to whom, you?

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For both dates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic

The Declaration was adopted by the First Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian SFSR on 12 June 1990. It proclaimed the sovereignty of the Russian SFSR and the intention to establish a democratic constitutional state within a liberalized Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords

The main obligations of the parties to the Agreement, ratified by all former Soviet republics except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, includes the following:

The end of the existence of the USSR, with the "setting up of lawfully constituted democratic… independent states… on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for State sovereignty".

Clear enough for you? The CIS is the successor to the USSR, not Russia.

[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It proclaimed the sovereignty of the Russian SFSR and the intention to establish a democratic constitutional state within a liberalized Soviet Union.

within a liberalized Soviet Union

So they didn't declare "independence" from the USSR like the other republics, thanks for making my point for me.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

CIS was its successor

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?

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Kazakhstan will rise again!