• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Veto Russia

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
112,667
Reaction score
103,020
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

9.28.25
Russia is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council whose purpose is to maintain international peace and security. But the country remained on the Council after its tanks rolled into Ukraine in February 2022. One year later, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky appeared at the Security Council to request that Russia’s veto power be removed and said, “the veto has turned the Council into a morgue, blocking every effort to stop the slaughter.” Russia must be banned from UN membership and declared a terrorist state. Its ongoing involvement in the Security Council is equivalent to putting a serial killer in charge of the NYPD. That’s what the UN did in 1991 when it allowed Russia to replace the Soviet Union as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with a veto. The Soviet Union was also abusive and the first to use the veto in 1946, but Russia has gone further to clear the way for its warfare. It blocked action on Syria starting in the 2010s, vetoed a resolution on Crimea in 2014, and prevented a vote on its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Veto power is controversial, and some proponents argue that it’s needed because: a) the UN would break down if it attempted to enforce binding action against any permanent member, and b) the veto is a critical safeguard against United States domination. However, it’s been weaponized by Russia, is undemocratic, provides immunity for other permanent members or their allies, and is the reason behind the United Nations’ years of inaction against wars, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

It’s a privilege that has been abused. The Security Council veto privilege was granted to the five permanent members who “won” the Second World War – Russia, the US, the UK, France, and China. Another ten countries from the overall membership rotate in and out of the Council, but any of the five can veto a resolution even if all 14 other members approve it. Ironically, Russia shouldn’t have been allowed to sit on the Council. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, its 15 republics became independent states. Ukraine, which had fought more and suffered more wartime casualties than Russia itself, should have been given the honor of a permanent Security Council seat for helping defeat the Nazis. Instead, Boris Yeltsin simply declared that Russia would inherit the Soviet Union’s position. No legal vote ratified this takeover. The world simply acquiesced, and that mistake has paralyzed global governance ever since. To remove Russia, the UN Charter itself must be changed, but it cannot be because the process is rigged. Expelling a Security Council member requires a recommendation from the Security Council itself – but Russia or the other permanent members can simply veto their own expulsion. Checkmate. This rule is why the United Nations cannot keep the peace or control Putin’s global warmongering.Meanwhile, Putin rampages while post-war institutions, paralyzed, watch from the sidelines. Civilians are bombed and children abducted by the thousands. The reality is that as long as Russia remains on the Security Council, the UN will be irrelevant and damaging. As currently constituted, the UN gives Russia a license to kill and upend the world. That is the message that President Trump should have delivered this week.

I agree in general that the UN is ineffectual. Granting the Russian Federation a permanent Security Council veto in 1992 was a huge mistake that in effect castrated the United Nations.

To again become even somewhat relevant, the UN needs to remove the Russian Federation from the UN Security Council. Using Nuremburg Trial rulings and rationale, the Russian government is a criminal organization waging wars of aggression.
 
No nation should have a veto in the Security Council. I say sure, give India, Japan, Germany and Brazil the permanent seats they want, but at the same time, abolish the veto.
 
No nation should have a veto in the Security Council.

I could live with this. One member, one vote. No veto power.

That then begs the question: Sould UNGA votes be binding or non-binding on members?
 



I agree in general that the UN is ineffectual. Granting the Russian Federation a permanent Security Council veto in 1992 was a huge mistake that in effect castrated the United Nations.

To again become even somewhat relevant, the UN needs to remove the Russian Federation from the UN Security Council. Using Nuremburg Trial rulings and rationale, the Russian government is a criminal organization waging wars of aggression.
The utter hypocrisy in trying to pretend that the UN “gives Russia a license to kill and upend the world” when America is actively helping carry out a genocide and using its veto to try and shield Israel from any significant consequences is utterly pathetic on every level.

Trying to remove Russia while allowing the U.S. to stay would destroy what remains of the UN’s credibility in the eyes of most of the globe.
 
I could live with this. One member, one vote. No veto power.

That then begs the question: Sould UNGA votes be binding or non-binding on members?
I would prefer binding, but that will never happen. No government would want to be bound with what a bunch of other governments support. We already have that problem in the EU.
 
I would prefer binding, but that will never happen. No government would want to be bound with what a bunch of other governments support.

Yes, which basically reduces the UN to being a strictly advisory body with no real powers.

What it is today. An ornament.
 
Yes, which basically reduces the UN to being a strictly advisory body with no real powers.

What it is today. An ornament.
The U.S and its pals never wanted the UN to be anything else.
 
Last Monday, a week ago from today, the full UN Security Council met and discussed Russia's murderous war in Ukraine.

Every nation castigated the Russian Federation. (China said it favored peace) But not a damn thing of note happened.

The next day Russia again attacked Ukrainian cities with drones, glide bombs, and cruise missiles, killing many civilians including children.

A colassal waste of time and energy. I'd have no problem if the UN put up a "Out of business" sign on the front door and departed from New York.

And it is a huge headache for the FBI and NYPD to keep tabs on the Russian, North Korean, and Chinese spies attached to their UN missions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, which basically reduces the UN to being a strictly advisory body with no real powers.

What it is today. An ornament.
A Third World Kaffeeklatch.
 
Back
Top Bottom