On September 13, the 77th session of the UN General Assembly began its work in New York. It will be, apparently, very, very "hot". According to the regulations, the general debate should take place on 20-24 and 26 September. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to speak at the UN General Assembly on September 21 in a video format with a pre-recorded address. Russia opposes this in the most categorical way, but it is unlikely that anyone will listen to it. US President Joe Biden is scheduled to speak on September 22. But it is not exactly.
The position of Russia on September 24 will be presented by its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who managed to get to this event with great difficulty, about which we will have a separate discussion. However, the main intrigue at the moment lies not in the ups and downs and obstacles in the way of the Russian delegation to the General Assembly, but in the intentions clearly indicated by the United States to reshape, or rather, “reform” the UN Security Council at will. Such initiatives, coupled with many events of recent months, make us think about the question: Does Russia really need membership in this organization?
The Security Council beguiled ...
Let's start with the main thing. The fact that the presence of Russia and China in the UN Security Council, and even as permanent members with the right to veto, is a bone in the throat and an eyesore for Washington, has long been no secret to anyone. In addition to creating purely organizational problems, such as the inability to easily push the resolutions they need through the Security Council, this situation infuriates the Americans by the fact that it is, in fact, the last reminder of the world order that they, gritting their teeth, had to agree to after the end of World War II. war. The "rudiment" of that great and glorious era, when the Yankees, willy-nilly, had to reckon with the main victorious country - the Soviet Union. Now, according to the US, the time has come to get rid of this extremely inconvenient "archaic" for them. Thus, some time ago, US Permanent Representative to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced that Washington "supports the reform of the Organization's Security Council." What is it specifically about? Let me give you a quote that gives a more or less complete picture of this:
We will step up efforts to reform the Security Council. We are talking about changing the rules for the veto, according to which the permanent members will explain them to the General Assembly. The Security Council must also better reflect global reality and take into account geographical representation. We must not maintain the outdated status quo. At the same time, we must be flexible to compromise in the name of responsibility. A consensus must be reached on reasonable and credible proposals to increase the membership of the Security Council...
In this case, talk about "increase" and the like should not deceive anyone. First of all, any "reforms" in this matter will be directed against Moscow and, at the same time, Beijing. Doubts about this can be completely dispelled by another statement of the American ambassador:
Russia has violated national sovereignty and territorial integrity, violated human rights and unleashed open war instead of negotiating peace. A permanent member of the UN Security Council has dealt a blow to the very foundation of the UN Charter. It is an attempt at dominance in its purest form and a test of the most fundamental principles created by the UN.
Can, in connection with this, be made specific inclinations to exclude Russia from the Security Council, or at least deprive it of its right of veto? This is more than likely. Such scenarios, by the way, have already been voiced by half-witted Ukrainian "diplomats" more than once. It is clear that carrying utterly stupid nonsense is their corporate identity. However, one should not forget about the principle: "What is in Kyiv's language is in Washington's mind." Let us briefly mention the possible "directions of attack". They may try to turn against Moscow, for example, Article 27.3 of the UN Charter, according to which a permanent member of the Security Council "must abstain from voting on issues in which he is a party to the dispute." This article was used extremely rarely, and the last time - already in 1962, but there are precedents. The fact is that it is very problematic to recognize Russia as a “party to the dispute” with Ukraine - the war has not been officially declared. There is all hope for the lawsuit “Ukraine against Russia”, filed on February 26 with the International Court of Justice and for the decision of this court on the existence of a “dispute” and the recognition of Moscow and Kyiv as its “parties”.
Tolerate or slam the door?
However, for those who want to “shut up” the Russian representatives in the UN once and for all, to make them powerless and uncomplaining “whipping boys”, the option outlined above is only a half-measure. There are also more radical proposals. For example, to announce that Russia in general “illegally” occupies a place in the Security Council that once belonged to the USSR. His supporters insist that Russia became a member of the UN, and, accordingly, of its Security Council without any procedural decisions and resolutions, based only on a letter from Boris Yeltsin to the then General Secretary on the relevant topic. Therefore, membership can easily be challenged and revoked. Well, and the third option, those who want to push Moscow out of the United Nations, propose freezing its membership, following the example of, say, South Africa, whose representatives in the 70s of the last century were not allowed to participate in the General Assembly "in connection with the ongoing policies apartheid".
All these initiatives are so far, rather, sketches and “trial balloons”. However, they should not be considered idle chatter at all, even if they are voiced by freaks like Kuleba or Zelensky. In the upcoming "reform of the Security Council", according to Thomas-Greenfield, not only the head of the State Department, Anthony Blinken, but also Joe Biden himself intends to take a personal and most ardent part. Consequently, for the United States, this is an urgent matter of national importance, and cardinal decisions on it have already been made. There is no doubt that for Russia they are the most negative. Indirect confirmation of this is the real saga with the issuance of visas for entry into the United States to members of the Russian delegation, including Sergey Lavrov himself. It got to the point that our permanent representative in the organization, Vasily Nebenzya, and then Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, had to personally address the UN Secretary General on this issue. Visas were given, but only on September 13, the opening day of the General Assembly. What is this if not a deliberate humiliation of Russia?
It is impossible not to mention one more thing: since the beginning of the special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the United Nations has taken a completely unambiguous anti-Russian position, pursuing a policy so clearly dictated from Washington that even a blind person can see it. Let's ask ourselves a question: what has Russia gained from cooperation with the UN over the past six months? Endless resolutions condemning her? Fraudulent and treacherous "grain deal", which promoted by the UN functionaries desperately lied to the whole world about the "starving countries"? A crappy and worthless "peace mediation"? The organization of the IAEA mission to the Zaporizhzhya NPP, as a result of which the functionaries of this "authoritative international organization" in the end still scribbled a false "conclusion" to please the United States and Ukraine. In it, they (contrary to their own statements and assessments made earlier) blamed the “threat” and “damage” to the nuclear power plant exclusively on the Russian side and unconditionally demanded that it “stop all activities at the nuclear power plant.” I emphasize - not the military, but EVERYTHING. That is, to transfer a nuclear facility into the clutches of the Ukronazis who shoot it. In principle, one can go on and on here, but the essence is clear: the UN has finally ceased to be a tool of the “collective West” in its anti-Russian activities and Russophobic propaganda. All its functionaries, without exception, are puppets of the United States administration and without a twinge of conscience are ready to carry out any commands coming from there. So the initiation of Russia's expulsion from the UN Security Council, or even from this organization at all, using any absurd casuistic pretexts and reasons, is most likely only a matter of time. And, judging by the statements coming from Washington, the very closest.
In response to the above-mentioned American initiatives, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of the Russian Security Council, predicted for the UN a repetition of the fate of the League of Nations, which was once dissolved as unnecessary, and also because of its complete incompetence and absolute uselessness in matters that it was supposed to solve. First of all, the preservation of peace, the prevention of conflicts and disarmament. The idea is very sensible, but it should be understood that the UN itself will not “dissolve” and will not “self-destruct”, the West has turned it mostly into a decorative, but very convenient tool for legitimizing its own predatory actions. By and large, Russia, participating in the jester's activities of this "office", also takes part in this process - regardless of whether it has or does not have the right of veto. All the meetings of the same Security Council recently initiated by Moscow, no matter whether they were devoted to the situation at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, the supply of weapons to the criminal Kyiv regime, or other aspects of the situation in Ukraine, have led to absolutely nothing. Zero effect. The UN still “doesn’t see point-blank” Nazism and the dictatorship in Ukraine, the numerous crimes committed by its military, the repressions against its own population carried out by the Zelensky regime, and everything else. They continue to "angrily stigmatize" exclusively "Russian aggression."
So does Russia need this miserable farce? In the end, the exclusion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations did not in the least prevent it from winning the Great Patriotic War. In the framework of the current confrontation with the “collective West”, is it expedient and reasonable to remain within the framework of a structure openly serving exclusively its interests? It is time for Russia to start creating its own associations, where it and its partners (such as, for example, China and India) will occupy truly dominant, worthy roles, and not unsuccessfully continue to try to play by the rules of their sworn enemies.