- Russia’s veto power at the UN Security Council has been used more than a dozen times to block resolutions condemning its actions in Ukraine.
- Ukraine argues that a nation waging aggressive war should not hold veto authority over global peace and security decisions.
- Removing Russia’s privileged position would be the most significant challenge to the UN’s power structure since its founding in 1945.
- The current UN Security Council structure was established in 1945 and reflects outdated geopolitical realities.
- International institutions must adapt to contemporary threats or risk irrelevance, according to a growing consensus.
Since February 2022, Russia has used its veto power at the United Nations Security Council more than a dozen times to block resolutions condemning its actions in Ukraine—actions that independent investigations have classified as war crimes. This institutional immunity, granted by its permanent member status, has drawn increasing outrage. Ukraine now argues that a nation waging aggressive war should not hold veto authority over global peace and security decisions. As diplomatic pressure mounts, Kyiv is spearheading a campaign to strip Russia of its privileged position, a move that would mark the most significant challenge to the UN’s power structure since its founding in 1945.
\n\n
A Challenge to the Post-War Order
\n
The current structure of the UN Security Council was established in 1945, granting permanent seats and veto power to the five Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the Soviet Union—now succeeded by Russia. This arrangement has long faced criticism for reflecting outdated geopolitical realities. Ukraine’s call gains urgency amid evidence of systematic attacks on civilians, forced deportations, and the destruction of critical infrastructure. With Russia repeatedly blocking accountability measures, many nations view the Council as paralyzed. The campaign to remove Russia is not merely symbolic; it underscores a growing consensus that international institutions must adapt to contemporary threats or risk irrelevance.
\n\n
The Legal and Diplomatic Push
\n
Ukraine’s initiative is being advanced through multilateral forums and bilateral diplomacy, with Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba leading high-level discussions at the UN General Assembly. While the UN Charter does not provide a clear mechanism for removing a permanent Security Council member, Kyiv and its allies are exploring legal reinterpretations and procedural workarounds. Some scholars suggest that Article 6 of the Charter, which allows for the expulsion of UN members for persistent violations of principles, could be invoked. Though no member has ever been expelled, the argument hinges on Russia’s sustained breach of Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against other states. Support is growing among Eastern European, Nordic, and Baltic nations, with Canada and several EU members voicing cautious endorsement.
\n\n
An Unprecedented Constitutional Dilemma
\n
Removing Russia from the Security Council would require amending the UN Charter, a process needing approval from two-thirds of UN member states, including all five permanent members—a near-impossible hurdle given Russia’s veto. Legal experts warn that any attempt to bypass this process risks undermining the organization’s legitimacy. However, momentum is building for alternative models, such as suspending Russia’s veto rights during active conflict or creating a parallel accountability mechanism. According to a 2023 report by the Council on Foreign Relations, over 70% of UN member states now support Security Council reform, with 45% specifically backing structural changes to limit veto abuse. These figures signal a shift in global sentiment, even if immediate structural change remains elusive.
\n\n
Global Repercussions and Power Shifts
\n
If successful, Ukraine’s campaign could redefine the balance of power in international diplomacy. A weakened or excluded Russia from Security Council decision-making would reduce its ability to obstruct sanctions, peacekeeping missions, and war crimes investigations. However, the move could also trigger retaliatory diplomatic isolation and deepen global fissures. Developing nations, wary of Western-led initiatives, may resist reforms perceived as targeting specific states. Moreover, China and other non-permanent members might view such changes as precedent-setting, raising concerns about future challenges to their own influence. The implications extend beyond Ukraine: they touch the credibility of multilateralism in an era of resurgent authoritarianism and fragmented alliances.
\n\n
Expert Perspectives
\n
“The UN Security Council was designed for a world that no longer exists,” says Dr. Susan Akram, international law professor at Boston University. “Russia’s actions in Ukraine expose its structural flaws, but unilateral removal risks chaos.” Conversely, Dr. Thomas Weiss of the CUNY Graduate Center argues, “Institutional paralysis in the face of aggression demands bold action. If the UN cannot hold its members accountable, it forfeits its moral authority.” These divergent views reflect a broader debate: whether reform should come through incremental treaty changes or revolutionary institutional redesign in response to geopolitical rupture.
\n\n
Looking ahead, the feasibility of removing Russia remains uncertain, but the conversation has irrevocably shifted. Upcoming votes on UN reform, scheduled for late 2024, will test the depth of global support. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to build coalitions, leveraging moral authority and wartime diplomacy. The outcome may not be immediate expulsion, but even a sustained campaign could erode Russia’s legitimacy and catalyze broader Security Council restructuring. As the rules-based order faces unprecedented strain, the world watches to see whether international institutions can evolve—or risk collapse under the weight of outdated power.
Source: Nashaniva