comment: >
  
  Amazing how this keeps on getting posted on Reddit, and so many users have no idea on why this is a dumb idea
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