• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Russia in the 21st Century [Superthread]

YZT580 said:
sadly, so what. No action will ever be undertaken by the UN to stop Russia from doing as they wish.
Click to expand...
What action could be taken? Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There is no mechanism to remove a permanent member of the Security Council into the UN Charter.

This article from the King's College London website gives an excellent explanation why it simply won't happen:
www.kcl.ac.uk

Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council? | Feature from King's College London

ANDREW MACLEOD: In light of Russia
www.kcl.ac.uk
 
GR66 said:
What action could be taken? Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There is no mechanism to remove a permanent member of the Security Council into the UN Charter.

This article from the King's College London website gives an excellent explanation why it simply won't happen:
www.kcl.ac.uk

Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council? | Feature from King's College London

ANDREW MACLEOD: In light of Russia
www.kcl.ac.uk
Click to expand...

"Let us boldly state that aggression wherever it occurs and however it may be defended, is an international crime, that it is the duty of every peace-loving state to resent it and employ whatever force is necessary to crush it, that the machinery of the Charter, no less than the machinery of the Covenant, is sufficient for this purpose if properly used, and that every well-disposed citizen of every state should be ready to undergo any sacrifice in order to maintain peace ... I venture to impress upon my hearers that the great work of peace is resting not only on the narrow interests of our own nations, but even more on those great principles of right and wrong which nations, like individuals, depend.
The League is dead. Long live the United Nations.[242]"

The Assembly passed a resolution that "With effect from the day following the close of the present session of the Assembly [i.e., April 19], the League of Nations shall cease to exist except for the sole purpose of the liquidation of its affairs as provided in the present resolution."[244] A Board of Liquidation consisting of nine persons from different countries spent the next 15 months overseeing the transfer of the League's assets and functions to the United Nations or specialised bodies, finally dissolving itself on 31 July 1947.[244] The archive of the League of Nations was transferred to the United Nations Office at Geneva and is now an entry in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register.[245]
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

League of Nations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

If the institution isn't working go to Plan B.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Speaking of which, meta is now blocking all news from any media anywhere in the world to Canada.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, the Liberal Party's ads will still be available ;)

Trudeau Likens Bill C-18 Battle To World War Two Fight for Democracy as Government Suspends Meta Advertising (But Not Liberal Party Ads)​


The government escalated the battle over Bill C-18 yesterday, announcing that it was suspending advertising on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms due the company’s decision to comply with the bill by blocking news sharing and its reluctance to engage in further negotiations on the issue. While the ad ban applies to federal government advertising, Liberal party officials confirmed they plan to continue political advertising on the social networks, suggesting that principled opposition ends when there might be a political cost involved. At issue is roughly $11 million in annual advertising by the federal government, a sum that pales in comparison to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s estimate of at least $100 million in payments in Canada for news links from Meta alone.
 
GR66 said:
What action could be taken? Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There is no mechanism to remove a permanent member of the Security Council into the UN Charter.

This article from the King's College London website gives an excellent explanation why it simply won't happen:
www.kcl.ac.uk

Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council? | Feature from King's College London

ANDREW MACLEOD: In light of Russia
www.kcl.ac.uk
Click to expand...
theoretically, Russia is not. They usurped the seat when the Soviet Union went defunct. Not sure how that would work out to get rid of them though because China would still have a say in the matter and I don't think they would want to be the only left wing in the group
 
YZT580 said:
theoretically, Russia is not. They usurped the seat when the Soviet Union went defunct. Not sure how that would work out to get rid of them though because China would still have a say in the matter and I don't think they would want to be the only left wing in the group
Click to expand...
If you read the article I posted you'll see an explanation of why Russia's claim to the USSR's Security Council seat will not be challenged.
 
GR66 said:
If you read the article I posted you'll see an explanation of why Russia's claim to the USSR's Security Council seat will not be challenged.
Click to expand...
Actually there is good reason to challenge it.
China / Taiwan is a 50% argument for China’s seat or dissolution if there is no consensus. Win

The USSR, there are a lot of potential inheritors and should they put the matter to a vote of former members, Russia won’t be getting it — Win

Uk, I suspect the Scott’s would be happy to allow England to have the sear if they get their independence - win.
 
YZT580 said:
sadly, so what. No action will ever be undertaken by the UN to stop Russia from doing as they wish.
Click to expand...
Just as there is no action that will be taken by the UN to hold the US accountable for their actions either. At the end of the day the UN was created to protect the power structure in place at the end of WWII, hence the nations that are permanent council members.

How can a organization that is supposed to hold nations accountable work when some nations randomly possess vetos on everything? Some pigs are more equal than others.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Just as there is no action that will be taken by the UN to hold the US accountable for their actions either. At the end of the day the UN was created to protect the power structure in place at the end of WWII, hence the nations that are permanent council members.

How can a organization that is supposed to hold nations accountable work when some nations randomly possess vetos on everything? Some pigs are more equal than others.
Click to expand...
The Sec Gen of the UN and his minions are selected very carefully - as most puppets are.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Speaking of which, meta is now blocking all news from any media anywhere in the world to Canada.
Click to expand...
The Globe and Mail is still spamming my Facebook newsfeed. I don’t mind since I have a subscription, but I don’t know how they’re getting through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

daftandbarmy
Russia’s military gamble in Syria is paying off handsomely But for how long?
Replies
6
Views
15K
KevinB
KevinB
a_majoor
Israel in the 21st Century
Replies
12
Views
17K
OceanBonfire
OceanBonfire
Edward Campbell
Geopolitics in the 21st Century
2 3
Replies
51
Views
63K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
tomahawk6
Obama's Defense Policy
2 3
Replies
47
Views
35K
a_majoor
a_majoor
Infanteer
The Islamic Insurgency
2 3
Replies
50
Views
50K
a_majoor
a_majoor
Back
Top