Return to Answer

When a country dissolves, merges or suffers some other major changes it's customary that the new country which emerges from this process inherits the rights and duties of the former - for example, international debt but also membership on international organizations and treaties. When a country splits some negotiation is needed in order to decide which of the new countries inherits, or other some kind of agreement.

Russia inheriting most of the status and international positions of the former USSR is nothing strange. It was a pretty straightforward process. As for why the chance of "getting rid" of them wasn't taken:

• Nobody wanted to "get rid" of them. The security council is an organization of peacekeeping. Notwithstanding all its defects, which are many, it's better to have Russia on the table than not. The Security Council, just as the UN in general, gives a pretence of "international law" to the decisions it agrees upon. A security council with just France, the UK and the USA is not a UN Security Council: it's a NATO Council, and you can count that Russia and China would make their own versions. In the end, the United Nations would split into several Not-So-United Nations.

• China would have vetoed any initiative towards the expulsion of Russia - knowing they could be next.

• If you start kicking permanent members out of the security council, maybe some countries will start thinking about why there must be permanent members at all, with veto power, or why they shouldn't be one of them. That's a can of worms the current permanent members would rather leave closed.

When a country dissolves, merges, or suffers some other major changes, it's customary that the new country which emerges from this process inherits the rights and duties of the former - for example, international debt but also membership in international organizations and treaties. When a country splits, some negotiation is needed in order to decide which of the new countries inherits or other some kind of agreement.

Russia inheriting most of the status and international positions of the former USSR is nothing strange. It was a pretty straightforward process. As for why the chance of "getting rid" of them wasn't taken:

• Nobody wanted to "get rid" of them. The Security Council is an organization of peacekeeping. Notwithstanding all its defects, which are many, it's better to have Russia at the table than not. The Security Council, just like the UN in general, gives a pretense of "international law" to the decisions it agrees upon. A Security Council with just France, the UK, and the USA is not a UN Security Council: it's a NATO Council, and you can count on it that Russia and China would make their own versions. In the end, the United Nations would split into several Not-So-United Nations.

• China would have vetoed any initiative towards the expulsion of Russia, knowing they could be next.

• If you start kicking permanent members out of the Security Council, maybe some countries will start thinking about why there must be permanent members at all, with veto power, or why they shouldn't be one of them. That's a can of worms the current permanent members would rather leave unopened.

When a country dissolves, merges or suffers some other major changes it's customary that the new country which emerges from this process inherits the rights and duties of the former - for example, international debt but also membership on international organizations and treaties. When a country splits some negotiation is needed in order to decide which of the new countries inherits, or other some kind of agreement.

Russia inheriting most of the status and international positions of the former USSR is nothing strange. It was a pretty straightforward process. As for why the chance of "getting rid" of them wasn't taken:

• Nobody wanted to "get rid" of them. The security council is an organization of peacekeeping. Notwithstanding all its defects, which are many, it's better to have Russia on the table than not. The Security Council, just as the UN in general, gives a pretence of "international law" to the decisions it agrees upon. A security council with just France, the UK and the USA is not a UN Security Council: it's a NATO Council, and you can count that Russia and China would make their own versions. In the end, the United Nations would split into several Not-So-United Nations.

• China would have vetoed any initiative towards the expulsion of Russia - knowing they could be next.

• If you start kicking permanent members of the security council, maybe some countries could start thinking about why there must be permanent members at all, with veto power, or why they shouldn't be one of them. That's a can of worms the current permanent members would rather leave closed.

When a country dissolves, merges or suffers some other major changes it's customary that the new country which emerges from this process inherits the rights and duties of the former - for example, international debt but also membership on international organizations and treaties. When a country splits some negotiation is needed in order to decide which of the new countries inherits, or other some kind of agreement.

Russia inheriting most of the status and international positions of the former USSR is nothing strange. It was a pretty straightforward process. As for why the chance of "getting rid" of them wasn't taken:

• Nobody wanted to "get rid" of them. The security council is an organization of peacekeeping. Notwithstanding all its defects, which are many, it's better to have Russia on the table than not. The Security Council, just as the UN in general, gives a pretence of "international law" to the decisions it agrees upon. A security council with just France, the UK and the USA is not a UN Security Council: it's a NATO Council, and you can count that Russia and China would make their own versions. In the end, the United Nations would split into several Not-So-United Nations.

• China would have vetoed any initiative towards the expulsion of Russia - knowing they could be next.

• If you start kicking permanent members out of the security council, maybe some countries will start thinking about why there must be permanent members at all, with veto power, or why they shouldn't be one of them. That's a can of worms the current permanent members would rather leave closed.

When a country dissolves, merges or suffer some other major changes it's customary that the new country which emerges from this process inherites the rights and duties of the former - for example, international debt but also membership on international organizations and treaties. When a country splits some negotiation is needed in order to decide which of the new countries inherites, or other some kind of agreement.

Russia inheriting most of the status and international positions of the former USSR is nothing strange. It was a pretty straightforward process. As for why the chance of "getting rid" of them wasn't taken:

• Nobody wanted to "get rid" of them. The security council is an organization of peacekeeping. Notwithstanding all its defects, which are many, it's better to have Russia on the table than not. The Security Council, just as the UN in general, gives a pretence of "international law" to the decissions it agrees upon. A security council with just France, the UK and the USA is not a UN Security Council: it's a NATO Council, and you can count that Russia and China would make their own versions. In the end, the United Nations would split into several Not-So-United Nations.
• China would have vetoed any iniciative towards the expulsion of Russia - knowing they could be next.
• If you start kicking permanent members of the security council, maybe some countries could start thinking about why there must be permanent members at all, with veto power, or why they shouldn't be one of them. That's a can of worms the current permanent members would rather leave closed.

When a country dissolves, merges or suffers some other major changes it's customary that the new country which emerges from this process inherits the rights and duties of the former - for example, international debt but also membership on international organizations and treaties. When a country splits some negotiation is needed in order to decide which of the new countries inherits, or other some kind of agreement.

Russia inheriting most of the status and international positions of the former USSR is nothing strange. It was a pretty straightforward process. As for why the chance of "getting rid" of them wasn't taken:

• Nobody wanted to "get rid" of them. The security council is an organization of peacekeeping. Notwithstanding all its defects, which are many, it's better to have Russia on the table than not. The Security Council, just as the UN in general, gives a pretence of "international law" to the decisions it agrees upon. A security council with just France, the UK and the USA is not a UN Security Council: it's a NATO Council, and you can count that Russia and China would make their own versions. In the end, the United Nations would split into several Not-So-United Nations.

• China would have vetoed any initiative towards the expulsion of Russia - knowing they could be next.

• If you start kicking permanent members of the security council, maybe some countries could start thinking about why there must be permanent members at all, with veto power, or why they shouldn't be one of them. That's a can of worms the current permanent members would rather leave closed.