• Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s not wrong.

    Russia has neither the hard nor soft power to continue having a UN veto.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately Russia is going to veto anything that would strip that power from them.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh no, what an insurmountable problem. Everyone knows if you break the rules of the UN, the UN rules enforcers will come from on high to stop you.

        The reason Russia isn’t going to be stripped of a veto is naked realpolitik, not because the rules and procedures say you can’t do it.

      • nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t the general assembly just acknowledge that the RF does not inherit the Soviet Union veto? Same way that they stripped Taiwan of their veto. I don’t think that would require a security council vote.

      • Novman@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, vetoes are from countries that have won wwii. Other countries cannot build nuclear weapons ( and if they do so they are defined rogue states )

      • squirrel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The general idea was the same though. An international organization is useless unless all the great powers are voluntary participants. But the great powers won’t participate in a organization that works against their interests. Therefore, the organization needs to kowtow to the interests of all the great powers.

        The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal. The fact that there’s a very strong correlation there is of course not a coincidence.

        • severien@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal.

          No, the criteria didn’t change, it’s still the original set of countries with the permanent seat and veto power. It’s also unlikely to change.

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish. That seat and the structure of the Security Council is in the UN’s charter. You need a new UN to get rid of Russia and put the correct China back in place.

    • nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The UN has not resolved that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union w.r.t. veto powers. It’s just been assumed. For the PRC there was an actual vote.

      Ukraine legally has just as much of a right to the Soviet Union veto.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Russian Federation is a direct successor state; the PRC was a much murkier issue at the time.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What exactly do you think is going to happen if the rest of the UN decides to break the UN charter? Is Russia going to sue?

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, no. There is no such thing as international law as there is no superior power to forcibly require compliance. However your statement and the argument within fails fatally at a fundamental level as you simultaneously acknowledge the lack of a formal framework of hierarchy while appealing for that absent hierarchy to act.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is no formal framework, it’s simply an exercise in power, and the anti-Russia nations hold enough power to redefine how they act with respect to Russia (i.e., dismissing them from the Security Council or simply ignoring their attempts to veto). Just because the rules are not naturally enduring has no bearing on their ability to have an impact while the majority powers support them.

  • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    UN is a total waste of resources, it means nothing and it does more harm than good.