Get out of the UN: will such a step be fatal for Russia?


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.
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 16 September 2022 09: 23
    +10
    in the intentions clearly indicated by the United States to reshape, or rather "reform" the UN Security Council at will.

    What if China and Russia veto this decision?
    Russia should not withdraw from the UN, but demand the transfer of this organization to India. Since the United States does not issue visas to members of delegations to the UN. And for this, the SCO, BRICS and other international organizations need to be involved. India will also like to be the center of the world. This is an ancient civilization, not some upstart.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Benjamin Offline Benjamin
    Benjamin (Benjamin) 16 September 2022 09: 40
    -9
    We slide into a tangle of countries of the 3rd world, without weight and without a voice
    1. ja.net.1975 Offline ja.net.1975
      ja.net.1975 16 September 2022 21: 27
      -3
      already rolled down and it’s funny when it didn’t reach someone and they pretend that we still mean something
  4. Colonel Kudasov (Leopold) 16 September 2022 10: 06
    +9
    It is known that Stalin agreed to the deployment of the United Nations in the United States at the request of Roosevelt, who said that only such a location would "satisfy the people of the United States." That is, America would ignore the UN if it were in a neutral country. Well, why is Russia worse? It is necessary to seek transfer to a neutral country or leave. Nothing catastrophic will definitely happen, and the UN will become an inferior organization
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 16 September 2022 12: 11
      +1
      It is categorically impossible to leave the UN, but it is necessary to move the UN headquarters from New York to Europe. There are many reasons - the remoteness of the continents of Asia, Africa, Europe with the majority of UN members, to the obstruction by the US authorities to arrive at the UN. (Russia, etc.). European countries will agree with such a transfer of the UN base due to competition and strained relations with the USA .. Turn the UN from an organization obedient to the United States into its adversary, and this is a strategic direction ..
      1. Pacer Offline Pacer
        Pacer (Pacer) 17 September 2022 14: 32
        +1
        It is strictly forbidden to leave the UN

        ... Russia's exit from the UN will only mean self-dissolution and lack of legitimacy of the organization due to the exit of one of the main founders. Those. means abolition. Even if the rest of the members want to keep it, the organization will become one-sidedly flawed and not reflecting the opinions of other leading countries of the world. A paired exit from the UN Security Council together with China - all the more ...
        1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 17 September 2022 20: 12
          +1
          (Pacer) You are either a fool or a provocateur. In the world, the exit of one country means nothing. The United States wants to be removed from the Security Council of the Russian Federation, and you agree. The PRC will not come out, will not commit such stupid things - so you understand your stupidity of what was said ...
          1. Pacer Offline Pacer
            Pacer (Pacer) 17 September 2022 20: 48
            0
            In the world, the exit of one country means nothing.

            ... you yourself are trying to mislead people! By any means, even with a carcass, even with a stuffed animal, even on knees, calling to be a member of this organization.

            Russia, as the successor of the USSR, is one of the main founders of the UN! By leaving this organization, it can thereby render the organization itself incompetent and disavow and delegitimize all the decisions that those who remain there can make! The UN is a product of compromises and not a democratic structure. It was ruled by the victorious countries over the defeated in WWII. After 91 years, the main structures there were captured by the Ami. The Russian Federation has only the right of veto in the Security Council.

            If, by any illegal actions, the United States can block the right of veto of the Russian Federation in the Security Council, or otherwise introduce reforms in the UN, for example, introduce a pre-emptive right to vote of its vassals in the UN to make this or that unrighteous decision, then Russia has no place in such an organization! As is the PRC.
        2. DV tam 25 Offline DV tam 25
          DV tam 25 (DV tam 25) 22 September 2022 09: 38
          0
          That's it! By taking such a step, Russia will simply show the whole world the futility of the current UN in fact! It would also be appropriate to voice this step in the right direction and, most importantly, to try to offer an alternative. Difficult? Not at all. The world sees and understands what is happening.
  5. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 16 September 2022 13: 59
    +2
    Withdrawal from the UN will deprive the Russian Federation of the main world platform from which to speak with the whole world and the right to "veto" to stop the hostile encroachments of Western colleagues
    1. ja.net.1975 Offline ja.net.1975
      ja.net.1975 16 September 2022 21: 30
      +2
      and that we were able to stop the defeat of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya ???
  6. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
    Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 16 September 2022 15: 02
    +3
    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.

    A very odd point of view. To do exactly what the Americans want from us is another surrender of positions. Of course, this can be attributed to emotions. But just emotions in politics are completely inappropriate.
    Loud slamming of the door - of course it's not bad. However, for it to have a beneficial effect on our relations with the Americans, it must be loud enough. For example, the threat to the States of a nuclear war on their territory. However, why is it necessary to leave the UN for this? Do we now have a chance to create an alternative platform?
  7. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 (Victor) 16 September 2022 15: 20
    +1
    ... It is time for Russia to start creating its own associations, where it and its partners (such as China and India, for example) will occupy truly dominant, worthy roles, and not unsuccessfully continue to try to play by the rules of their sworn enemies.

    a question for the author, and who should start, don’t you see that there are no people who can take on this responsibility, all these Lavrovs and Putins are not the right people, they were brought up in the spirit of submission and admiration for the West
  8. patxilek Offline patxilek
    patxilek (patxilek) 16 September 2022 18: 30
    +4
    Not only the UN. All international organizations are an Anglo-Zionist farce with the appearance of impartiality, like NASA, although it seems to have nothing to do with it.
  9. ont65 Offline ont65
    ont65 (Oleg) 16 September 2022 21: 20
    +1
    If it was only about the UN! Alas, there are a bunch of other pseudo-international organizations in which the US coalition and partners rule the show by putting their representatives in leadership positions. These organizations are funded and created by them to resolve their issues, and disputes are still resolved by force. They left the Council of Europe, the WTO is now in question... Dialogue with the countries represented there was impossible. Therefore, parallel forums are being created to solve regional problems by groups of countries outside these organizations, but as a form, albeit empty in content, of dialogue with a wide range of other countries outside the Western bloc, these channels must be preserved. Otherwise, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be choked with correspondence on all the issues discussed in them with all countries at once, if it works at all, because. information in the Foreign Ministries is distributed among the existing ones and no one will create new ones separately for the Russian Federation. It is not worth it, as we do in the media, to attach more importance than it actually is to the UN, the IOC or any other international communication platform, that's all. They fought in Korea with the "UN troops" and nothing. The main thing is not to be embarrassed to hit the arrogant face in time, and then you can exchange courtesies in tailcoats.
  10. Chhat he is LEO, no one listens to him, and we'll save money!
  11. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 16 September 2022 23: 46
    +3
    You can't leave the UN on your own.
    But if the West pushes through such a decision, then it is necessary to withdraw from all interstate agreements and treaties. No UN missions, IAEA, and other WHOs. All agreements and obligations of Russia (for example, on the grain deal) are cancelled.
    Of course, this is an undesirable option, but it is necessary to act as tough as possible.
  12. Alex D Offline Alex D
    Alex D (Alex D) 16 September 2022 23: 58
    +2
    Moving the UN headquarters to India is best. The most neutral country. The dominance of Americanism is already enough.
  13. Vladimir Orlov Offline Vladimir Orlov
    Vladimir Orlov (Vladimir) 17 September 2022 01: 05
    +1
    why insinuations ..?
    we won't go ourselves.
    if sga, then they will have to change the basis - the charter, the first document when created. This is unlikely, they first need to convince everyone to dissolve themselves, and then get together in another desk, but without us.
    Hardly.
    they will not want to be the destroyers of the world order, because then whoever has more bombs means more rights.
    1. GIS Offline GIS
      GIS (Ildus) 19 September 2022 16: 37
      -1
      insinuations in order to

      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

      so the whole "circus with horses"
      my opinion cannot be conceded to the Americans=tsam by a millimeter. and the transfer of the UN headquarters is a really good proposal, which would possibly have had the effect of a "tub of cold water" on the hotheads of the atlantists, although ...
      can offer to place the UN in the Russian Federation? What do you think, if China offered such a heart attack, many would have happened?))))
    2. Dust Offline Dust
      Dust (Sergei) 21 September 2022 14: 54
      -1
      The whole point is, Russia is a whole continent! Without Russia, nothing in the world will be decided properly. You can dissolve yourself, but how will you then gather the states together? The world will split into two parts, which will very quickly lead to a nuclear war.
  14. Dust Offline Dust
    Dust (Sergei) 21 September 2022 14: 48
    0
    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.

    Russia has veto power. It cannot be taken away. Unless the UN dissolves itself. And Russia will not vote against itself.