Russia is the legitimate successor state of the Soviet Union. The article implies that the correct procedure for succession was not followed, but this is not true. When a country splits up, as the USSR did, the legal precedent is for all of the resulting states to come to an agreement on succession. They did, recognizing Russia as the successor. Yugoslavia followed the same procedure, although they came to a more complex agreement with multiple successors.

There's a (far right) movement in Germany that believes the current Germany is not the successor of the Third Reich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany does into many legal details but it can be similar summaries as: yes of course it's the successor.

> The article implies that the correct procedure for succession was not followed, but this is not true.

Based on what text in the Charter?

> When a country splits up, as the USSR did, the legal precedent is for all of the resulting states to come to an agreement on succession.

“Legal precedent” means something was challenged and ruled on by a court or similar adjudicative body prior to the time relevant to the breakup of the USSR; please cite the case? In any case, the objection is not based on “legal precedent”, but on the express text of the Charter.

(Also, the consensus-of-successors approach you describe is not the practical precedent at the UN; other split-ups that do not leave the original entity intact but with smaller territory have had the UN seat lapse and the new states separately admitted. Of course, none of those have held permanent UNSC seats; the breakup of the USSR was a sui generis case for which there really was no precedent, legal or practical, in that respect.)

Then where's the evidence to prove this? That's specifically what Sydorenko is saying doesn't appear to exist, or if it does, is being kept secret for unclear reasons.

>Then where's the evidence to prove this?

The behavior of every nation in the UN over the last 30 years which has accepted them as such on the Security Council?

There's a difference between acceptance and formal admittance.

No there isn't, the UN has recognized their Security Council votes as legitimate for 30 years, so there is no argument.

While certainly there are some institutions where an error allowed to persist for a specified duration becomes irreversible, I see no argument that there is such a rule applicable to the UN issue at hand.

The argument is clear, if any country on the Security Council thought Russia to not be the legitimate successor to the USSR on the Security Council then they would have raised the issue. Not only was it accepted then, its' been accepted for 30 years.

Only now do you have some idiots on social media trying to start WW3 by suggesting they be removed.

The UN is not a world police. It exists so that Nations have a formal forum. And the reason why some have a veto, is so that when a resolution gets approved, you can really be sure it will be applied by all parties.

It's an error to see it as some kind of court where you are able to enforce your decisions.Maybe it can become that in the future, but for sure the US will be the first country to opt out ;-) Instead, is a venue for formal diplomatic communication.

Yeah, so why isn't India a permanent member? They're much larger, second only to China, and have nukes.

At the time of formation of the United Nations India was not an independent country. The acceptance of India as a permanent member has been raised on and off by several countries always with sympathetic tones. It's an historical accident.

Permanent members are not determined looking at who's bigger, or who has nukes.

Permanent members are the five biggest winners of WW2.

Your theory differs from the GP so better to address them than me.

It's not a theory, it's a well established fact that you can easily find on Wikipedia:

"The permanent members were all allies in World War II (and the victors of that war)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...

Please stop telling me why belter's premise is wrong.

You can't debate me about a premise introduced by another person.

You have to resolve the issue with them.

I already made a comment that is based a premise (dudul's) that seems similar to yours, instead of belter's. Here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411

Again, when I respond to someone, in the context of their premises, I am not adopting those premises and I don't have to defend them to anyone.

Go back and argue with the person who actually introduced what you want to dispute.

As a Hungarian I see that all tiny symbolic international gestures against my official president (Viktor Orban, a soft dictator for the last 12 years, who just visited Putin a few weeks ago) helps us to finally increase the chances of unseating him.

At the same time Putin still has nuclear weapons, so the risks of kicking him out of international organizations is much higher.

By that standard, aren't you saying North Korea should be admitted to the UN?

It has been. The standard of admission is generally 'internationally recognised state', not 'good government'.

Even him turned on Putin:

"Hungary Won't Block Any Sanctions Against Russia, PM Orban Says" https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-26/hungar...

It's not the first time he changed his mind in a day. Luckily he understands that we need NATO support or Russia would take over Hungary easily.

"Being peaceful is a requirement" I mean, I think we can dissolve the Security Council at this point. What an idiotic article. Russia was internationally recognized as the successor of the former USSR.

Given all of the rationales mentioned in this thread, how can you justify Russia being a permanent member and not India?

I believe that India was refusing to condemn the invasion, so it might also be a strategic move by NATO-aligned members to consider adding them.

What does it have to do with the article? Permanent members are the victors of WWII, that's all. USSR won WWII, so they were part of it. Russia is the successor of the USSR so they got their seat. Nothing to do with India.

We can discuss changing the composition of the council, or even getting rid of the "permanent member" status, but that has nothing to do with why Russia is a member today.

The USSR should not be considered a "victor" of WWII because they did not choose the Allied side, it was chosen for them, and most of the suffering was a consequence of Soviet leadership, while the ability to resist the Nazi invasion was due to incomprehensibly large amounts of supplies from the Allies.

"USSR won WWII" is from the imaginary world of Russian nationalist speechifying, where the Nazi-Soviet pact and Allied aid are taboo to mention.

And India...India achieved independence due to WWII, so who says they weren't a victor?

i have never seen more stupid propaganda all at once than in the last week.

this is what you call and 'intellectual internationalist' form of propaganda for idiots.

oh yes, let's just disband the security counsel, that way we can rely on generals in stead of statesmen and diplomats to discuss in a very civil and calm manner how to plan to NOT have nuclear war between nuclear armed nations.

whatever you call the u.n. it is a bullshit corrupted formality. the u.n. is useless. the only thing of signficance is a forum for civil discussion between NON overtly military states-craft experts---to discuss the prevention of nuclear war. beause once they stop-----the generals begin discussing how to trick one another into being vulnerable to nuclear war, while their war planners prepare.

it is as if the moron propagandists of the world would have everyon believe nuclear war is impossible and that no, of course, superpowers could have limited direct combat without risking nuclear escalation.

yes....why not. why not dumb down our own populations this much. nothing bad could result.

"Article 4 of the Charter states that any peaceful state can become a member of the UN. Being peaceful is a requirement."

we should probably remove a couple of countries from the UN

> we should probably remove a couple of countries from the UN

The United Nations is essentially a diplomatic forum. Once you remove Russia and the United States as non-peaceful countries, any feeble hope of a diplomatic solution is completely gone.

There's little to lose, but nothing to gain.

What a dumb angle. No one can dispute they are the successors of the USSR. what is the alternative, having every single ex soviet republic there?

I don't like Putin, I condemn Russia's aggression to Ukraine, but this is essentially anti-Russian propaganda.

The international consensus is that Russia is the legitimate successor of the Soviet Union.