Ukraine just pitched a very fitting punishment for Moscow's invasion

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

At Wednesday night’s historic meeting of the United Nations Security Council, as the gathered ambassadors finished giving prepared speeches calling for de-escalation, Vasily Nebenzya, Russian ambassador to the U.N., confirmed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement that the country had begun a “special military operation” in Ukraine. In response, Ukraine’s ambassador openly questioned Russia’s status as one of the most powerful members of the Security Council.

Sergiy Kyslytsy, who’d prepared a statement arguing for diplomacy, ditched it to castigate the Russians for their unprovoked aggression — but only after he’d read aloud the section of the U.N. Charter on admitting new members and accused Russia of having used a "sneaky" loophole to gain the power to veto Security Council action.

It's a bold claim — but one that isn’t as farfetched as it may seem. The Soviet Union died in December 1991, but there are several possible dates we might place on the U.S.S.R.’s metaphorical death certificate. Whichever one is deemed correct could alter the way international politics has functioned since the end of the Cold War.

The Soviet Union died in December 1991, but there are several possible dates we might place on the U.S.S.R.’s metaphorical death certificate.

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-just-pitched-a-very-fitting-punishment-for-moscows-invasion/ar-AAUgU4G

[uponit7771]

1. K&R, there is no more "soviet union"

[intrepidity]

2. An interesting dilemma

I can see both sides of the argument.

Ukraine’s argument has supporters and detractors. Israeli law professor Yehuda Blum argued in 1992 that Russia’s claim to the Soviet seat didn’t sit right with precedent. The U.N.’s Legal Committee had decided in 1947 that “the rights and obligations of membership of a State cease to exist ‘with its extinction as a legal person internationally recognized as such.’” By declaring that the Soviet Union no longer existed at all on Dec. 8 and 17, it stood to reason that there was no longer a Soviet seat to occupy, Blum argued.

“This claim of the Russian Federation — made some three days (and possibly 16 days) after the dissolution of the Soviet Union — that it was ‘continuing’ the legal existence and hence the U.N. membership of the latter, must thus be considered — irrespective of its obvious political merits — as being seriously flawed from the legal point of view,” Blum wrote.

Alternatively, Estonian law professor Rein Mullerson in 1993 argued that Russia is legally a continuation of the Soviet Union, not a successor state. Subjective factors, such as territory, culture and recognition by outside parties led him to conclude that the Soviet Union had undergone a “separation of parts of its territory while its core — Russia — continues to exist as a continuation of the Union.” If that’s the case, Russia’s claim of the Soviet Union’s seat makes total sense.

[SheltieLover]

3. Kick the Ruskies out of UN!

[bluedigger]

4. Allowing Russia to take the USSR's permanent seat on the UN Security Council was a huge gaffe.