Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 25, 2022

When implemented in 1945, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council Were the US, UK, France, Republic of China, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So ... why is Russia there? Wouldn't Ukraine (or any former Soviet state) be just a qualified to hold that seat? Similar story with China ...

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

No they wouldn't. Ukraine is a massively corrupt Nazi --------.

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2022-09-25 11:25 AM | Reply

"No they wouldn't. Ukraine is a massively corrupt Nazi --------."

So is Russia.

My point is that there is no successor state to the Soviet Union, so that seat should have been permanently vacated. But any other former Soviet State should have as much claim to the seat as Russia does.

In fact if I were a Ukrainian lawyer or rep to the UN, that's what I would be pushing.

But why not have that seat filled by Estonia, or Latvia, or Lithuania, or Georgia?

They were all Soviet Socialist republics right alongside the Russians.

My point is that I have trouble understanding how the UN objectively supports giving the seat to the successor to the Russian SSR, but none of the others?

#2 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because they were the leadership in the USSR?

#3 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2022-09-25 11:55 AM | Reply

" Ukraine is a massively corrupt Nazi --------."

Remind us what % of overall votes the Nazis got last (non-sham) election?

And did they have to go door-to-door "harvesting" votes with machine guns, like Russia just did?

Let's see if you can answer honestly.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-09-25 12:28 PM | Reply

Just a wild guess, but I'd bet nuclear weapons are involved in some way.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Headline raises a good question, because the only nations Russia wants to "unite" are its neighbors through forced annexation.

#5 is probably right. But it could just be naivety on the part of the UN. Take for example, appointing China to the UN Human Rights council.

#6 | Posted by horstngraben at 2022-09-25 12:40 PM | Reply

Or maybe the UN just loves irony?

#7 | Posted by horstngraben at 2022-09-25 12:41 PM | Reply

My point is that I have trouble understanding how the UN objectively supports giving the seat to the successor to the Russian SSR, but none of the others?
#2 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Have you tried trying?

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-25 12:55 PM | Reply

ow the UN objectively supports giving the seat to the successor to the Russian SSR, but none of the others?

I would assume that since the USSR only had one seat then the "dissolved" USSR would also only get one and Russia was the logical choice?

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 01:23 PM | Reply

"Because they were the leadership in the USSR?"

I don't think you understand how the Soviet Union functioned,

It would be like the US breaking apart, and giving the new country of Alaska the seat, when there were 49 other former states who had just as much claim.

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 01:23 PM | Reply

Just a wild guess, but I'd bet nuclear weapons are involved in some way."

Until 1995, Ukraine had nukes.

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 01:30 PM | Reply

"I would assume that since the USSR only had one seat then the "dissolved" USSR would also only get one and Russia was the logical choice?"

Why would Russia be the "logical" choice?

Transnistria actually claims to be the ideological heir of the Soviet Union.

Why not give it to them?

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 01:31 PM | Reply

"Have you tried trying?"

I have, but I come up stumped every time.

I can only guess that the world viewed this seat maybe as a consolation prize for a country that had gone from hero to zero after the collapse of global socialism. Placating a second rate country to shut them up.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 01:33 PM | Reply

Why not give it to them?

Because few have ever heard of it?

#14 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 01:34 PM | Reply

#14

I didn't realize it was a popularity contest.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 01:43 PM | Reply

#13 If the United States were to become a different country that no longer includes Alaska and Hawaii, and the remaining 48 states kept their seat, would you really not be able to figure out why Alaska and Hawaii do not have seats on the Security Council?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-25 01:51 PM | Reply

Transnistria actually claims to be the ideological heir of the Soviet Union.
Why not give it to them?
#12 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Because Transnistria isn't the political heir to the Soviet Union. The only nation that can make that claim is Russia. They never had to, though. They basically got grandfathered in. How all that happened is the "why" question you should be looking at, MadBomber.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-25 01:54 PM | Reply

Nukes + Red Army. They couldn't afford the Red Army though, settled for an Expeditionary Force + Rocket Corp, cheaped out on the EF, and lost most of it in Ukraine. Still have that Rocket Corp though. At least 1/3 of it will work.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-09-25 02:14 PM | Reply

I didn't realize it was a popularity contest.

It wasn't. It was a "Might makes Right" contest. Russia basically informed the UN they were taking over the former USSR role in the UN and no one objected and that was (and is) that.

#19 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 02:16 PM | Reply

Badbumber can figure out the answer to the question he's just wasting time and seeing if we have any weaknesses rather than get ready to die in Ukraine.

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2022-09-25 02:36 PM | Reply

#16

If the US were still recognized by the UN as the US, your question is immaterial.

If the USSR still existed, even if it were only Russia, then they would have a claim to the seat.

Does the USSR still exist?

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 02:39 PM | Reply

"Because Transnistria isn't the political heir to the Soviet Union. The only nation that can make that claim is Russia."

How is it that Russia could rationally make that claim when Ukraine could not?

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 02:40 PM | Reply

"Russia basically informed the UN they were taking over the former USSR role in the UN and no one objected and that was (and is) that."

Negative.

In fact Ukraine has not recognized Russia's claim as the successor to the USSR, and claims that they are a contender as well. And this is not a new thing. It's been this way since 1991.

So why would Ukraine not have as much claim to the seat formerly occupied by the USSR than Russia does?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 02:44 PM | Reply

Badbumber can figure out the answer to the question he's just wasting time

Or he's turning into Tucker Swanson Carlson and "just asking questions".

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 02:45 PM | Reply

"Badbumber can figure out the answer to the question he's just wasting time and seeing if we have any weaknesses rather than get ready to die in Ukraine."

Dude, you an Effete are more than free to waive your Russian flags to your heart's content. Have a nut.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-09-25 02:45 PM | Reply

In fact Ukraine has not recognized Russia's claim as the successor to the USSR

Well at the time 11 of 12 of the Commonwealth of Independent States did, so that's where we are.

#26 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 03:57 PM | Reply

The long gone Soviet Union was on the security council and nobody has voted to put the Russian Federation on it. They should not be on it simple as that.

#27 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2022-09-25 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

frak putins russia, vote them completely. tell them they can reapply with no guarantee, after they stop their aggression.

#28 | Posted by ichiro at 2022-09-25 08:50 PM | Reply

The fate of the Soviet Union was finally sealed on 25 December 1991 with the resignation of its President, Mikhail S. Gorbachev.12 One day earlier, on 24 December 1991, the Permanent Representative of the USSR to the United Nations, Ambassador Y. Vorontsov, transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a letter from the President of the Russian Federation, Boris N. Yeltsin, stating that:

the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name `Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations.13

The Secretary-General thereupon circulated Mr. Yeltsin's request with Ambassador Vorontsov's cover letter among the UN membership, adding that he had `informed the President of the General Assembly and of the Security Council of these letters, as they relate to matters of interest to all organs and organizations of the United Nations system...'14

In the absence of any objection, the delegation of the Russian Federation took over the Soviet seat in the UN General Assembly, in the Security Council and in other organs of the United Nations, with the appropriate changes of the name-plates and flag having been undertaken by the UN Secretariat.


www.ejil.org

So there's that...

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-25 09:20 PM | Reply

In a word, they are a permanent member because of WWII, and because of nukes.

Pretty much the same with all the members but China. China didn't have nukes at the time of
the U.N.'s founding, nor were they big players in WWII. What they did have, at the time, was the world's largest population, and still do.

#30 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-09-25 09:20 PM | Reply

What they should have done was apportioned that seat among the former Soviet Socialist Republics, so they'd have to be unanimous (or near) for their vote to count as anything other than an abstention.

Ditto for the PRC and ROC representing "China".

#31 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-09-25 09:31 PM | Reply

---- Putin. That little poofter.

#32 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-09-26 01:06 AM | Reply

"Why Is Russia a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council?"

For the same reason China, Cuba, Venezuela and Pakistan are members on the UN Human Rights Council.

#33 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-26 12:19 PM | Reply

"Because Transnistria isn't the political heir to the Soviet Union. The only nation that can make that claim is Russia."
How is it that Russia could rationally make that claim when Ukraine could not?
#22 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Because....

The Soviet Union,[n] officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[o] (USSR),[p] was a transcontinental country that spanned much of Eurasia from 1922 to 1991. A flagship communist state, it was nominally a federal union of twenty one republics;[q] in practice, both its government and its economy were highly centralized until its final years. It was a one-party state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the city of Moscow serving as its capital as well as that of its largest and most populous republic, the Russian SFSR.
en.wikipedia.org

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-26 01:36 PM | Reply

For the same reason China, Cuba, Venezuela and Pakistan are members on the UN Human Rights Council.

So you are saying Russia has a permanent seat on the Security Council because they have an election every three years?

#35 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-26 02:05 PM | Reply

What I'm saying is the UN is a bit of a joke - that the countries I listed being on the Human Rights Council makes about as much sense as Russia being on the Security Council.

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-27 10:23 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort