13 September 77th session of the UN General Assembly began its work in New York. Will she, as it appears, very, very hot. According to the regulations, general debate should take place 20-24 and 26 September. Expected, what 21 September, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky will speak at the UN General Assembly in a video format with a pre-recorded address. Russia opposes it in the most categorical way, but hardly anyone will listen to her. On 22 US President Joe Biden is scheduled to speak in September. But it is not exactly. Russia's position 24 September will be presented by 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 is not the ups and downs and obstacles on the way of the Russian delegation to the General Assembly, and in the clearly indicated intentions of 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 issue: Does Russia really need membership in this organization??
Security Council beguiled…
Let's start, perhaps, from the main. the, that the presence of Russia and China in the UN Security Council, and also as permanent members, veto power, is for Washington a bone in the throat and an eyesore, no secrets for anyone for a long time. In addition to creating purely organizational problems, such as the inability to easily drag through the Security Council the resolutions they need, this situation infuriates Americans also because, That is, in fact, the last reminder of that world order, to which they, grinding his teeth, had to agree after the end of World War II. "Rudiment" of that great and glorious era, when the Yankees, willy-nilly, had to reckon with the main victorious country - the Soviet Union. Now, as they think in the USA, it's time for that, to get rid of this extremely inconvenient for them "archaic". So, 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 quote, giving a more or less complete picture: We will step up efforts to reform the Security Council. We are talking about changing the rules for issuing a veto., according to which the permanent members will explain them to the General Assembly. The Security Council should also better reflect the global reality and take into account the geographical representation. We must not maintain the obsolete status quo. At the same time, we must be flexible to compromise in the name of responsibility.. Consensus must be reached on reasonable and credible proposals to increase the membership of the Security Council… In this case, talking 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 violated national sovereignty and territorial integrity, violated human rights and unleashed open war, instead of making peace. Permanent member of the UN Security Council strikes at the very foundation of the UN Charter. It is an attempt at domination in its purest form and a test of the most fundamental principles., created by the UN. Can specific inclinations be made in connection with this to exclude Russia from the Security Council or at least deprive it of its right of veto?? It's more than likely. This kind of scenario, by the way, have been repeatedly voiced by the crazy Ukrainian "diplomats". clear, what to carry utterly stupid nonsense - this is their corporate identity. However, one should not forget the principle: “What does Kyiv have in the language, that in Washington on the mind». Let us briefly mention the possible "directions of attack". They may try against Moscow, for example, draw article 27.3 UN Constitution, according to which a permanent member of the Security Council "should abstain from voting on issues, in which he is a party to the dispute". This article was rarely used., and for the last time - already in 1962 year, but there are precedents. The thing is, that recognizing Russia as a “party to the dispute” with Ukraine is very problematic - the war has not been officially declared. Here is all the hope for the lawsuit "Ukraine against Russia", submitted 26 February to the International Court of Justice and to the decision of this court on the existence of a “dispute” and the recognition of Moscow and Kyiv as its “parties”.
Endure or "slam the door"?
However, for those, who wants to “shut up” the Russian representatives at the UN once and for all, make them disenfranchised and resigned "whipping boys", the above option is only a half measure. There are more radical proposals. for example, to announce, that Russia generally “illegally” takes a seat in the Security Council, once owned by the USSR. His supporters are arguing that, that Russia became a member of the UN, and, respectively, 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. Consequently, membership can be easily challenged and revoked. Well, and the third option, who want to kick Moscow out of the United Nations, offer to freeze its membership following the example, let's, South Africa, representatives of which in the 70s of the last century were not allowed to participate in the General Assembly "in connection with the apartheid policy pursued in the country". All these initiatives are, rather, sketches and "trial balloons". However, they should not be considered empty chatter at all., even if they are voiced by freaks like Kuleba or Zelensky. In the upcoming "reform of the Security Council", as Thomas-Greenfield states, intends to take a personal and most ardent part not only the head of the State Department, Anthony Blinken, but also Joe Biden himself. 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, that for Russia they are the most negative. An indirect confirmation of this is the real epic 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, that our permanent representative in the organization, Vasyl Nebenzya, had to apply personally to the UN Secretary General on this issue first, and then Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. Visas were given, but only 13 September, on the opening day of the General Assembly. What is it, as an unintentional humiliation of Russia?It is impossible not to mention something else: since the beginning of the special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the United Nations has taken a completely unequivocal anti-Russian position, pursuing a policy of, so obviously dictated from Washington, that even the blind can see it. Let's ask ourselves: what Russia has gained from cooperation with the UN over the past six months? Endless resolutions condemning her? Fraudulent and treacherous "grain deal", pushing which UN functionaries desperately lied to the whole world about "starving countries"? Shoddy and worthless "peace mediation"? Organization of the IAEA mission to the Zaporozhye NPP, according to the results of which the functionaries of this “authoritative international organization” eventually nevertheless sprinkled a false “conclusion” for the sake of the USA and Ukraine. In it they (contrary to their own statements and assessments, previously done) 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, namely ALL. That is, to transfer a nuclear facility into the clutches of the Ukronazis who shoot it. Basically, here you can go on and on, but the point 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 initiating Russia's exclusion from the UN Security Council, or even completely from this organization using any absurd casuistic pretexts and reasons, likely, is only a matter of time. AND, judging by the statements coming from Washington, the very closest. In response to the above-mentioned American initiatives, the deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, predicted the UN to repeat the fate of the League of Nations, at one time disbanded as useless, and also because of her utter incompetence and absolute uselessness in matters, which she had to decide. First of all, save the world, conflict prevention and disarmament. Thought is very reasonable., that's just to be understood, that the UN itself will not “dissolve” or “self-destruct”, The West has turned it mostly into a decorative, but a very convenient tool for legitimizing your own predatory actions. By and large Russia, participating in the jester's activities of this "office", also participates in this process - regardless of whether or not it has the right of veto. All the meetings of the same Security Council recently initiated by Moscow are unimportant, dedicated to the situation at the Zaporozhye NPP, arms supplies to the criminal Kyiv regime or other aspects of the situation in Ukraine, didn't lead to anything. Zero effect. The UN still “does not see point-blank” Nazism and dictatorship in Ukraine, numerous crimes, committed by its military, repression against their own population, conducted by the Zelensky regime, and everything else. They continue to “angrily stigmatize” exclusively “Russian aggression.” So does Russia need this miserable farce? Finally, the exclusion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations did not in the least prevent him from winning the Great Patriotic War. Within the framework of the current confrontation with the “collective West”, to remain within the structure, openly serving only his interests, Is it appropriate and reasonable?? It's time for Russia to start creating its own associations, where is she and her partners (such, for example, like China and India) will occupy the truly dominant, their worthy roles, rather than keep trying unsuccessfully to play by the rules of your sworn enemies. Alexander Neukropny, Kiev
