comment: >
  
  History has repeated itself again and again. Just like the post WWI "league of nations" has failed to prevent wars, the UN has also failed to prevent multiple wars and genocides subce post WWII, despite its efforts in dialogues. So the UN Security is pretty much a useless symbol.
  Oh well, us regular folks can do our part by refusing to particpate or support any wars, and overthrow & rebel against any leaders who wants to start wars or forced conscriptions. 
  Any politcal leaders cannot be trusted for peace..And hopefully future mankind societal stucture would be more peaceful without any leaders.
context: That sounds perfectly feasible. All you need is unanimous support from every member of the UN security council and, seriously, who would be crazy enough to support those barbaric murderers and block the decision?
  Oh... Wait... >
  
  I mean, i think it's technically feasable. 
  Taiwan (well the Republic of China back then) had veto power and they were kicked out of the UN anyway in 1971 bypassing the veto using legal technicalities. >
  
  The fundamental principle behind the shifting of "China"'s seat is the same one behind Russia holding the USSR's. The PRC was acknowledged as the successor state to then-China, just as Russia is recognized as the USSR's. And both of those are obviously sensible choices. >
  
  That's not the point, the point is that this IS a loophole around the veto. A veto yielding state was kicked out so it's technically feasible. >
  
  The veto belonging to "China" wasn't removed. It was just given to a different government. And since Russia has been acknowledged as the USSR's heir for decades, there's really no argument to be made there. >
  
  
  And since Russia has been acknowledged as the USSR's heir for decades, there's really no argument to be made there.
  
  Kind of like how RoC was "acknowledged" as China's security council member for decades, and then there was a vote to change it to the PRC?
  The UN has been allowing Russia to use the UN security council seat as if it was the USSR but there was never a formal vote on recognizing it as such.
  Furthermore, nothing stops the members of the security council from deciding to kick out Russia if the vote is unanimous. Then the permanent security council would just be smaller from then on. >
  
  Russia is widely recognized as the successor state of the Soviet Union. The US and Europe have never challenged this. 
  A unanimous vote to kick out Russia would require support from Russia. Otherwise, it is not unanimous. Even if it were, China would vote against setting such a precedent. >
  
  
  The US and Europe have never challenged this.
  
  And now they are challenging. >
  
  No, the status of succession has not been challenged. >
  
  Until now. >
  
  As a political science major, this hurts to read every time its suggested. >
  
  It equally hurts to read as anyone with in depth knowledge of how laws work. All too many people want some higher power to exist and take charge, when there is no such thing. Like they don't understand an agreement between peers who have no authority above them. >
  
  Russia doesn't respect its agreements. There was never a formal UN action taken that I'm aware of to legitimize the transfer of the USSR seat to Russia the same way there was for PRC/Taiwan to China. There is no reason aside from just not having the political will/not wanting the fallout that it couldn't be done.
  As you said, no higher power to appeal to means there's shit Russia could do about it. Especially if China was on board. >
  
  Nice idea but the word 'permanent' in 'permanent members' is instructive here. >
  
  Russia isn't a legitimate regular member, let alone a legitimate permanent one. I think you're thinking about USSR, but it ceased to exist together with its membership status. 
  De facto it is currently due to bureaucratic laziness, but de jure it shouldn't. >
  
  Their nukes say they are legitimate >
  
  This is honestly exactly why they legitimately belong there and why they need to have a veto. 
  Russia are, whether we like it or not, a major power fighting a border war with a smaller neighbor who have been used as proxy by the Allies since the beginning of the war. Proxy. We have not entered this war to help Ukraine with our own forces because that would cross a red line, endangering (potentially) the entire human race.
  The UN security council exists to attempt to maintain world peace. Some nations have enough bang in their back pocket to ruin everybody's day if they so desire, and so pissing these nations off too much and not allowing them to draw a line is something everyone wants to avoid. We let these major powers have permanent seats on the security council and we let them have that red line - a veto power - to end discussions or suggestions to action because they find it unacceptable.
  By allowing this we have a forum in which things can get done only by careful co-operation and compromise, because unsatisfactory suggestions get vetoed. The veto ensures no major nation has their "red lines" crossed. By not crossing red lines, you have a much better chance at negotiating and ensuring peace. Russia on that council keeps us all safer.
  That was always the whole point. >
  
  If the previous months in Ukraine have proved anything, it is that Russia is no longer a "major" power. T
  If possessing nuclear weapons is a qualification then India, Pakistan and Israel should all be permanent members of the Security Council too. >
  
  It's not just the possession of nuclear weapons, but how many nuclear weapons a country possesses that would make them a power worthy of a seat at the table (outside of any military or economic considerations); even if only 10% of Russia's nuclear stockpile was actually functional (a number far more conservative than any of us should be comfortable with estimating), it would still be more than the three countries you listed combined. >
  
  And what exactly would be the point?  
  UNSC is a forum for nuclear powers.  
  We already have fora where we don't have to listen to Russia. E.g. U.S. Congress, EU Parliament, NATO, AUKUS, The Quad, etc.  
  The UN is not and should not be confused with a place where friends hang out and reach ideal outcomes. The UN is there to prevent communications breakdown between nuclear powers.  
  The UN is not realistically going to solve anything. It just moderates. >
  
  The UNSC is not all the Nuclear powers, and it predates nuclear proliferation. It is just the winners of WW2. 
  It also is supposed to regulate the use of force in international law, specifically to authorize it when a member state uses it outside of self defense. Read the UN charter. >
  
  What is the SC going to do without Russia that it couldn't do now? Approve a completely meaningless condemnation of the invasion? It's not like they can send in UN peacekeepers or the like, because Russia will still have the only veto that matters, a giant nuclear arsenal. >
  
  I just don't want a war criminal deciding what constitutes legality of military force in international law.
  Russia isn't a great power anymore but a gas station with nukes. No reason to let them keep USSRs seat. >
  
  
  I just don't want a war criminal deciding what constitutes legality of military force in international law
  
  Well, then UNSC should have been dissolved decades ago. USSR and USA have been war criminals for decades. Russia is just continuing the legacy of USSR with its war crimes. >
  
  Right? Every permanent member of the UNSC has a history of war crimes, all of em, China, U.S., France, U.K., and Russia. >
  
  Yeah.... Good luck with that >
  
  Wow. Just wow. >
  
  How is he wrong? 
  I'm against any war, but I'm quite sure the US has quite an equal number with Russia. Including rape and innocent casualties.... >
  
  Yea - Lets ban trade with the US - Cut of global communications with them - I'm sure they'll suffer and see their wrongdoings!  
  .... Just don't cut off their oil supply, or suddenly they'll be declaring war on you. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  "In my opinion, a mechanism for termination of membership should be established. I am not talking about the complete exclusion of Russia, but at least the suspension of Russia's membership in the Security Council."
  Michel stated on Sept. 24 that the suspension of Russia's membership in the UN Security Council should be automatic.
  Dmytro Kuleba, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said on Dec. 20 that Ukraine is preparing official steps to prove that Russia's presence in the UN Security Council is actually illegitimate.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Security^#1 Russia^#2 Council^#3 international^#4 membership^#5 >
  
  ITT: People who don’t understand the reason behind the UN Security Council permanent members.
  Edit:
  It serves no purpose to remove China or Russia from the security council.  To suggest so only demonstrates a lack in knowledge as to the purpose of the permanent status and veto ability. >
  
  We currently have a mafia don vetoing any UN resolutions he doesn't like. I would argue the UN currently serves no purpose and we should fund a newer better organisation. >
  
  Read my other comments. You misunderstand the purpose of the UN. >
  
  Calls for Russia’s suspension are naïve or do not know the rule’s of the UN. Any actions on the part of the UN Security Council are subject to veto by the 5 permanent members of the SC. They are China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States. So Russia can not be removed without approval by Russia. >
  
  Technically, isn't Russia's seat really the Soviet Union's? >
  
  You bring up an interesting point. If the United Kingdom loses Scotland and Northern Ireland would that also apply. >
  
  The UK's territory today is already substantially different than when the UN was founded. >
  
  Judging by the sheer stupidity and complete lack of education on the topic in the comments, no wonder we all have the leaders we do. 
  We’re fucked either way. >
  
  Soundbites for the uninformed. >
  
  And China for supporting the war >
  
  It's about time, because I have been wondering why these options have not been enforced before now... >
  
  Because then they would do it to America >
  
  There not. The questions is should any country that starts a illegal war be kicked out? 
  If Russia and China are kicked out of the un it probably effectively kills the un. >
  
  Uh, China and Russia do not control the UN and many, many other powerful nations are still going to unite. >
  
  But isn't the whole idea of UN is to be able to have a conversation of very different countries with absolutely different views? Isn't it weird to kick someone out for something that this exact structure is build to if not prevent but at least find a solution for? >
  
  It's the exact reason for the un. >
  
  Yeah, a lot of people have a hard time grasping that. The UN is toothless BECAUSE everybody that matters wants it to be toothless. If it wasn’t, no major power would bother engaging with it. >
  
  Russia has vetoed this suggestion >
  
  Suspending a permanent member…good luck >
  
  Russia ain't the permanent member. USSR is. We wink/nudged Russia into that seat and we could wink/nudge them out again if we could get China on board. >
  
  If that is possible, then it should have been invoked on the US for the second invasion of Iraq.
  Please note that this is not a defence of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is also immoral. >
  
  Soviet is no more, Russia shouldn't be in that seat from the beginning. >
  
  Seriously, suspension makes sense, bc Russia renders the UN non functional, unable to have any effective way to do their job as peacekeepers or humanitarian aid, ir even properly discuss the situation. >
  
  Hell yes >
  
  Amazing how this keeps on getting posted on Reddit, and so many users have no idea on why this is a dumb idea >
  
  YES
  Do it yesterday. >
  
  China and Saudi Arabia are still on the human rights council... >
  
  You guys forget about all the wars waging on other frontiers around the world as we speak, and they are not waged by the Russia.. I do not support the war but Am tired of washed braines that are not seeing stuff from a hugher ground, so blinded, we live in a world where there is not a good side or a bad side, only interest, when it comes to international relations. >
  
  There's a pretty clear bad side in the genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine. >
  
  Kick them out of the place where they can have peaceful dialogue?
  Smart idea from the EU >
  
  The structure of the thing is based on the victors of a war that ended nearly a century ago. Actual capabilities today have no bearing on it. It’s fucking absurd. There should at least be some obligations that must be followed, such as a respect for basic human rights and, I don’t know, a (small) maximum threshold for war crimes committed before censure. >
  
  Well duh, none of the main countries behind the UN wanted a mechanism that could remove them from the permanant membership if they ever lost some of their military and diplomatic power. It's the same reason why none of the permanant members seriously want a mechanism introduced either..
  Same with human rights requirements, do you think France wanted that when they helped with the Tutsi genocide? Do you think the US wants it for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? What about the UK for Bloody Sunday? China for Ughyurs? Russia for everything going on now.  Not a single nation on the security council wants such a requirement or they'd all be off. >
  
  Terrible idea.
  I don't like Russia but the UNSC is important because it forces the major nuclear powers to at least meet and talk around a table. Booting them out probably doesn't do much besides make the world slightly less safe.
  That said it won't happen anyway, because the UNSC was wisely implemented with veto powers. Some say veto is stupid but it actually makes sense because the UNSC can only operate with the consent of all powers, it'd breakup otherwise. >
  
  only with a full UN Security Council reform... >
  
  You know what will happen now? Russia will just veto that.
  Security council is overrated, it's also useless and pointless >
  
  This is about as likely as the USA dissolving the Electoral College. >
  
  If we’re gonna start kicking people out for invading other countries then we better just quit ourselves cause I’m pretty sure we attacked more countries than I can count, especially if you count all the covert stuff. >
  
  All permanent memberships and ability to veto any decisions should be removed from the UNSC. It’s not the 1950 any more. >
  
  Make it so >
  
  Engage! >
  
  Hit it >
  
  Right there shows how thick and/or manipulative our Western leaders are. That’s not how the UNSC rules work.
  We’re as much in danger with these morons around - if not more - than anyone at the mercy of Putin, Russian civilians included. >
  
  It’s gonna blow my mind if the rest of them don’t agree that Russia is actually an enemy of the UN Security Council >
  
  Thank you EU Council >
  
  Technically every seat held by the Russian Federation is meant to be held by the USSR. There was never an official transfer nor rewrite of any UN statute.
  It's an optimistic loophole, but perhaps someone can exploit it. >
  
  Make it >
  
  Why not this is what Putin wants anyway 👌 >
  
  This silly crap comes up all the time.
  The whole point of these councils is to include everyone at the table. Same is true of having whatever nation with war crimes is on the human rights council. The only power the UN has is soft power - and to achieve your ends with that you shame those countries officials by showing them how diplomacy works. Just cutting them off entirely just lets them avoid the public embarrassment and achieves nothing. >
  
  Haha, sounds like something Russia would veto. >
  
  Russia got in the council by proxy. They we not voted in. >
  
  About time! >
  
  The permeant security council seat was for the Soviet Union not for the Russia. Russia shouldn't have a permeant security council seat. >
  
  Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union. >
  
  So you guys want a US and EU world order? What about the rest of the world? >
  
  Personally I'd take it. They don't reflect my ideals but when compared to any reasonable alternative, they approximate it best. It's a far cry from my perfect world but it's the closest available option. >
  
  And what's in it for the rest of the world? They expected to simply comply? >
  
  It's natural for those who seek to impose their own order to push for that. Russia and China are competing for their own spheres of influence. I simply stated my preference and which sphere I would like to live under. >
  
  
  
  The Russian Federation did not ascend to the UN. All the other Soviet Republics applied for admission after they had declared independence from the Soviet Union.
  
  
  Legally per the UN Charter “Chapter V, Article 23 of the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, provides that "The Security Council should consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.” At no point as a matter of law or mechanism of litigation has this been changed. 
  
  
  Russia was not voted to take the seat. A letter was circulated with no objections. Article 27 states that “Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmativevote of nine members.
  Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”
  
  
  Russia was not the last member of the USSR.  Russia declared independence from the USSR on December 12, 1991. The request to the UN for Russias seat was not presented until 24 December 1991. Russia had no standing to request make that request as there were members of the USSR up until May 1992. 
  
  
  Russia taking on the debt of the USSR implies that the seat is for sale
  
  
  Even if the sale of the seat were the reason, this reasoning was not voted on not formally declared as the mechanism 
  
  
  There is a world without Russia and it starts by isolating them via removing them from the UNSC
  
  
  Having them on the UNSC has not stopped anything nor would their removal cause anything that would have otherwise been inevitable 
  
  
  China would fulfill all the antagonizing against the west/US that Russia currently does
  
  
  Being in the UN should be seen as a privilege as all signatories have pledge commitment to the common cause. By their actions Russia has demonstrated no intent on maintaining the tenants of the General Assembly or UN Charter. Therefore, they should be ostracized from the community of lawful nations until they reform. >
  
  The Russian Federation did not ascend to the UN - This statement is incorrect. The Russian Federation was one of the republics of the Soviet Union and was a founding member of the United Nations. It was one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, as provided for in the UN Charter.
  Legally per the UN Charter, the Security Council consists of 15 members, including the five permanent members - This statement is correct. However, it does not provide a justification for removing the Russian Federation from the Security Council. The UN Charter does not provide a mechanism for removing a permanent member from the Security Council.
  Russia was not voted to take the seat - This statement is incorrect. The Russian Federation, along with the other republics of the Soviet Union, became a member of the United Nations on October 24, 1945, when the UN Charter came into force. The Russian Federation has been a permanent member of the Security Council since its inception.
  Russia was not the last member of the USSR - This statement is correct. The Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991, and the Russian Federation declared independence on December 12, 1991. However, the timing of the declaration of independence and the request for a seat in the Security Council has no bearing on the Russian Federation's status as a permanent member of the Security Council.
  Russia taking on the debt of the USSR implies that the seat is for sale - This statement is not supported by any evidence and is a baseless assertion. The Russian Federation, along with the other republics of the Soviet Union, inherited the assets and liabilities of the Soviet Union as part of the process of dissolution. This does not imply that the seat on the Security Council was for sale.
  The reasoning for Russia's seat on the Security Council was not voted on or formally declared as the mechanism - This statement is incorrect. The Russian Federation, along with the other republics of the Soviet Union, became a member of the United Nations on October 24, 1945, when the UN Charter came into force. The Russian Federation has been a permanent member of the Security Council since its inception.
  There is a world without Russia and it starts by isolating them via removing them from the UNSC - This statement is incorrect. Removing the Russian Federation from the Security Council would not isolate Russia or have any impact on its actions. It would, however, weaken the effectiveness and credibility of the Security Council as a whole.
  Having Russia on the UNSC has not stopped anything nor would their removal cause anything that would have otherwise been inevitable - This statement is not supported by any evidence and is a baseless assertion. The Security Council, with the Russian Federation as a member, has played a significant role in international peace and security, including through the adoption of resolutions, the establishment of sanctions, and the authorization of peacekeeping operations. Removing the Russian Federation from the Security Council would likely have negative consequences for international peace and security.
  China would fulfill all the antagonizing against the west/US that Russia currently does - This statement is not supported by any evidence and is a baseless assertion. It is not accurate to suggest that the actions of the Russian Federation on the Security Council are solely motivated by antagonism towards the West or the US. The actions of any member of the Security Council are influenced by a variety of factors, including the interests and policies of that member state.
  Being in the UN should be seen as a privilege and Russia has demonstrated no intent on maintaining the tenants of the General Assembly or UN Charter - This statement is not supported by any evidence and is a baseless assertion. The Russian Federation, as a member of the United Nations, has a responsibility to uphold >
  
  The UN may do a lot o great things, but I am not sure the security council has ever really helped anything since the main threats to world peace sit on it. >
  
  That's...kind of the point. The world's greatest nuclear powers sitting at a table and not being able to grandstand or anything.
  It literally forces diplomacy instead of violence. >
  
  Seems not to be working too well when the countries that hold security council vetos seem the most prone to violence.  Russia today but the US and China as well have a history of abusing their military might to subjugate weaker nations. >
  
  It’s mainly designed to prevent direct conflict and avoid world wars. Hard to say if it really matters or not in the age of nuclear weapons. It appears at least for now, nukes are the preventative measure to direct conflicts between major powers. >
  
  Keep it on the council just remove it’s veto power whilst in act of aggression. 
  It’s important that they not exclude a nuclear power. But they could create a mechanism that whilst your country is engaged in unsanctioned conflict then your veto powers are temporarily revoked. You could then apply this across the group. >
  
  Having your veto power temporarily revoked would make the whole permanent status pointless
  None of the P5 members would stay in the organization if it can be used against their own interests. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is awful, but all of the other members have done some seriously shitty things since becoming permanent members 
  It’s not fair, but politics on the global stage never has been >
  
  Oh in that case let’s just do nothing to fix it. >
  
  There’s no need to act obtuse because you don’t fully understand the main purpose of the veto power 
  All of the permanent members are still at table for discussion because of that veto power. 
  Without it, they would leave whenever the organization can be used against their own interests and your running into the same issues into why the League of Nations failed 
  That’s the main point of it, and everything else is superfluous.
  Your suggestion would dissolve the whole thing >
  
  Good, and about time. Russia should never have been on there in the first place. It was only for the grace of Gorbachev that they got it, not by general UN vote. >
  
  Pathetic it took this long and a total failure for Russia to still be a part of this. >
  
  You'd think invading a neighboring nation with a signed treaty stating to not do that very thing would have been in the fine print. >
  
  Aaand how about reforming EU while you're at it? no single member should have veto power (looking at you Hungary and Poland) >
  
  The security council in general needs to be abolished >
  
  Russia does not exist! Putin's Land is what we have today! >
  
  Is it not possible for them to be suspended from, without being removed permanently? >
  
  United Western Nations vs. United Other Nations. Two new Organisations. >
  
  For those calling for russias removal ... right now there's some form of international accountability and dialogue .. if they are suspended, then that accountability and dialogue no matter how bad is gone >
  
  This should have happened the moment they attacked Ukraine 🇺🇦 and her people, not as an afterthought because of the increasing atrocities being shown coming out of the Ukraine, committed by Russian 🇷🇺 soldiers. The Russians raped and murdered CHILDREN, WOMEN, AND MEN, and left their animals to starve to death or eat their corpses, and then when a few Russians were caught and admitted their deeds on camera, suddenly they are alarmists — fake news, Russia claims. Fake News — I remember a similar US President using a little tactic like that in the USA 🇺🇸 when he was leading his country toward an attempted and failed coup d’etat. >
  
  Russia will veto it. This is just for show. >
  
  Regardless of the politics, is there even a process for this? Does the UN charter lay out how you would do this, even in theory? >
  
  Just fold the UN. It’s a completely useless organization. Any country with a moral compass would just leave this corrupt body of twits.