Russian news

[jone]

And the Soviet Union was not aggressively seeking to take over the world at the height of the Cold War?  None of those countries you mentioned have the capacity to make war.  Especially in the manner Russia does. 

Sorry, Boe,  while I do not believe that the Security Council is sacrosanct, I do believe that in order to function it needs all of the likely belligerent parties to take part.  Governments rise and fall.  But the ability to make war mandates the inclusion of Russia.  To not have them present would be tantamount to pushing the Russian leaders further into their self deluded grandstanding.

Your position on kicking the United States out of the Security Council only further displays an outlier position.

[Boethius]

It is not taking part I object to, it is the veto power.
 
There could have been UN troops in Ukraine a year ago, and more than 6,000 people would not have been killed.  But Russia stated it would veto any such attempt. 
 
The veto is also what I objected to re the Busheviks.  Belligerence should not be rewarded.  Russia's leadership is not behaving rationally.  That would be fine if it had a strong tradition of dissent, and the ability for its citizens to protest its government's belligerence.  But, it doesn't.  So, such a state should not have a veto power over the rest of the world.

[cc3]

"The veto is also what I objected to re the Busheviks.  Belligerance [sic] should not be rewarded.  Russia's leadership is not behaving rationally.  That would be fine if it had a strong tradition of dissent, and the ability for its citizens to protest its government's belligerance [sic].  But, it doesn't.  So, such a state should not have a veto power over the rest of the world."

B, in one short paragraph, you totally contradict yourself. You objected to the US having veto power in the Security Council because of Bush's actions. Then you write that it would be fine for Russia to have veto power, despite its misguided, criminal leadership (Putin + siloviki), if it only had "a strong tradition of dissent and the ability for its citizens to protest...". In the time of Bush, there was tremendous dissent and protesting in the US against his neo-con leadership. Bush opposition leaders and spokespersons were not assassinated as a matter of government policy, as they have been in Muscovy (and in London). So...why your objection to US veto power...for a country that has far more protection of the freedoms of speech and of the press than Canada, the UK, or any other EU nations, let alone Russia?

[Anotherkiwi]

From someone whose country IS on the Security Council, having just started its two-year term:

I agree that both Russia and the USA should be permanent members of the Security Council.  However, I think that the power of veto currently held by the five permanent members is an anachronism, and should be scrapped.  Each of the members needs to realise that the world has changed radically since the UN was set up nearly 70 years ago, and that the rest of the world does not need their fate determined by the actions of those five countries.  They also need to realise that using their power of veto as sheer self-interest (such as the case of Russia preventing peacekeeping forces going to Ukraine) will only have a negative effect on how they are perceived by the rest of the world.

Whether or not they care at all about any other country's opinion is, of course, a totally moot point - we know that they (both Russian and the USA) don't.

[SANDRO43]

Moreover, the USSR had a seat as it represented Eastern Europe.

Not quite, it was because the USSR was one of the impending winners of WWII (the Charter was signed on 26 June 1945, before the war fully ended)- and we all know that it is the winners who dictate policy .

The Cold War created a stalemate that has persisted to this day , I don't think the UN charter includes any provisions to grant voting rights based on population size - as is in most democracies.

The only change that ever occurred in that vein was the belated replacement of the Chinese Republic (Taiwan, a WWII winner only by courtesy of its staunch supporters, the USA and UK) in the UN Security Council by the Peoples' Republic of China, after a long process of barter.

[Boethius]

B, in one short paragraph, you totally contradict yourself. You objected to the US having veto power in the Security Council because of Bush's actions.

No, that is what you read into my post.  I agree with Kiwi, a single veto power is anachronistic in today's world, although there would have to be some form of veto would have to remain in place (say by 2/3 of the Council).

Then you write that it would be fine for Russia to have veto power, despite its
misguided, criminal leadership (Putin + siloviki), if it only had "a strong
tradition of dissent and the ability for its citizens to protest...".

Again, not what I posted. 

In the time of Bush, there was tremendous dissent and protesting in the US against his neo-con leadership. Bush opposition leaders and spokespersons were not assassinated as a matter of government policy, as they have been in Muscovy (and in London). So...why your objection to US veto power...for a country that has far more protection of the freedoms of speech and of the press than Canada, the UK, or any other EU nations, let alone Russia?

Because the UN does not function based on freedom.  What I object to is the fact that a permanent member of the Security Council is threatening other states with nuclear annihilation.  I should have added, I believe those threats are primarily for domestic consumption.  Nevertheless, it is irresponsible.
 
Thanks for the spelling correction.  I was reading a French text as I typed, and in my dotage, don't always make the switch.  YVMV.

[Boethius]

Not quite, it was because the USSR was one of the impending winners of WWII (the Charter was signed on 26 June 1945, before the war fully ended)- and we all know that it is the winners who dictate policy .

The Cold War created a stalemate that has persisted to this day , I don't think the UN charter includes any provisions to grant voting rights based on population size - as is in most democracies.

The only change that ever occurred in that vein was the belated replacement of the Chinese Republic (Taiwan, a WWII winner only by courtesy of its staunch supporters, the USA and UK) in the UN Security Council by the Peoples' Republic of China, after a long process of barter.

Thanks for the correction.

[lordtiberius]

FDR's men to the United Nations namely Alger Hiss was an agent of influence for the Soviet Union.  The system may need reform or it may need to be scrapped.  But before any of these, Russia should be removed.  It is, has and always will be a terror state.

[Boethius]

It wasn't a terror state in the Tsarist period.

[lordtiberius]

Like I said, has, is and always will be

[Boethius]

But it wasn't in the Tsarist period.  I knew people who were adults before the Revolution.  Their descriptions of life would not indicate a terror state.

[lordtiberius]

Victims of the Okhrana, serfs and members of ethnic and religious minorities would disagree. 

[Boethius]

Name one country that didn't have the same issues at some point in their history.

[lordtiberius]

That moral relativism is irrelevant.  Tsarist Russia did not the industrial and atheistic character of totalitarianism of the Soviet Union.  But for a student of both literature and history to deny justice to oppressed peoples is disappointing.

Let us call things by their own name.

[Boethius]

The Tsarist regime was where many monarchies were at various points in their history.  Russia was generally behind the times.  However, you cannot say that any country did not have all the same things.  That's the point.  Tsarist Russia was not democratic, and I never posted that it was.  But it was not a terrorist state.


Were you aware that until Ivan the Terrible, serfs had the right to change their owner?  From 1797, serfs worked only 3 days a week, and they could plow land as well.  By Nicholas I's time, 40% of serfs were freed.


If you want to know where serfdom was truly brutal, read about Polish landlords.

[lordtiberius]

It is always easy to dismiss the suffering of others when it is not you.  Ask a Jew.

Russia has, is and will always be a terror state.  Russia will cease being a terror state when it ceases to be a state.  All Russians know freedom when liberated from Russian flag.

[Boethius]

It is not about dismissing suffering.  Read what I actually posted.

[Gator]

What I object to is the fact that a permanent member of the Security Council is threatening other states with nuclear annihilation.

I am sure Russia would argue that the threat was made as a deterrent to a larger war.  Not that I agree with Russia's threat because clearly Russia is violating the basic principles of the UN.

The preamble to the UN charter expresses in the very beginning  a determination  "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."  To this purpose,  the peoples of the United Nations will "live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, .... maintain international peace and security, and ensure .... armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest...."


Russia's violation of the UN charter falls into the  "So what!" category for two reasons:

First, the UN is toothless.  Some key organizations of the UN have helped promote "social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom for the world..." [ed. I worked for the UN for two years doing exactly that.]    Yet, the history of UN in its seemingly most important role of world's peacekeeper has been a few small successes and many failures.  If Russia were not on the Security Council, the UN would still be toothless. 

Second,  I agree with Jone's post:   it is better that Russia participate, even as a belligerent party, than isolate it.  Unfortunately, the West needs Russia's participation for thorny issues such as Syria and Iran. 

[lordtiberius]

We don't need Russia.  Russia is not too big to fail. Russia has in every instance not a partner for peace but the culprit in destabilization.  If Russia were by some miracle of conscience Russia were to surrender Putin, rebuild the Donbas, pay reparations to Ukrainians and victims of MH17 and disarmed their nuclear arsenal, adopted a democratic constitution that federalized power, we can discuss them keeping their seat on the Security Council.

Even if my some feat of imagination, we were to overlook the Soviet and post-Soviet period, we have this body of literature, generations of displaced peoples fleeing programs or exiled to foreign lands or Siberia, and we are made to believe that Russian serfdom was more gentle than Polish serfdom?  The Tsarina that originally offered this piece of propaganda notely coined the term Potemkin villages but is by most accounts a practioner of mechanical bestiality.

Russia is a graveyard and the cradle of all bad ideas.  I did not invent this phrase but on looking at the evidence, it is my opinion.

It is, has been and always will be a terror state.

[lordtiberius]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ruble-at-strongest-level-since-december-1428490659

Ruble rebounds

[lordtiberius]

Russia and Ukraine moving on?

[lordtiberius]

Stratford says the Minsk 2 truce will hold.

[msmobyone]

 Unfortunately, the West needs Russia's participation for thorny issues such as Syria and Iran.

Re Syria.. The Kremlin supported Assad  - blocked a no-fly zone - when he was pounding those asking for transparency and the right for a free elections - for their own reasons of 'self interest'  - maintaining a good arms client and a port in the Med.

On the other hand, Assad is supported by many Christians who feared a more intolerant Islamic 'slant' and many Russians stronglybelieve that the west created IS ..... !



Nothing in the Middle East is simple - but RU and China do not want Assad to fall.

[lordtiberius]

Assad's days are numbered.  He killed American soldiers.

[southernX]

russia should imo , remain on the UN security council , they have nukes and  should be included ,

however there right to veto , needs to be removed , it only serves to entrench their thinking of a high ranking of importance & the need to have their influence at all costs validated

SX