Expelling Russia from the UN: Artem Mykolaichuk on the unrussiaUN Initiative

Nuclear weapons, “great culture,” and a “stolen seat” on the UN Security Council are the three pillars propping up the Kremlin’s bloody blackmail. While international diplomacy tries to adapt to new challenges, the twentieth-century security architecture is going through a deep crisis of legitimacy. How does Russia use its international status to trade in influence?

The world is entering a phase of revising its security architecture. World leaders speak about this openly. And Ukraine is shaping the agenda, as we saw at the NATO summit in Ankara. What moment or event, in your view, became the point of no return, when the world realized that Ukraine is no longer a “buffer” but an independent architect of security?

— The West was simply pinned to the wall by facts. At the start of the full-scale Russian invasion we were given only days; no one believed we could hold out. Many in European offices hoped it would all be over within hours — they would simply have voiced their traditional “deep concern,” limited themselves to supplying helmets and body armor, and moved on. For them that would have been the most convenient scenario.

But Ukrainians broke those plans, proving that we are an enormous, independent force. Our warriors made the West believe in Ukraine. Now world leaders are forced to recognize our agency and reckon with us, because we did not let Russia achieve its strategic goals.

Why does the post-1945 world order no longer work, and has the world adapted to the new one? Is the current division into an “axis of evil” and an “axis of democracy” final, or is the system still in the process of transformation?

— The system is undergoing global and very painful changes. International institutions turned out to be completely unprepared for today’s challenges. For years, international structures, including the UN and even some parts of NATO, were infiltrated by Russian agents of influence, financed and corrupted by the Kremlin.

When local conflicts flared up, they could somehow be extinguished or, more often, simply ignored. But now, with a large-scale war under way, the whole world has seen it: NATO in its current form does not guarantee rapid protection against hybrid and conventional threats, and the UN is utterly impotent when it comes to stopping aggression. The world order of 1945 is dead. Everything must change, and everything will.

If the world is entering a period of reforming international institutions, why is there still room for Russia in them? In the UN in particular?

— With the UN the situation is the most absurd. Russia is there absolutely unlawfully — that is a legal fact. It never went through the UN accession procedure for a separate state provided for by the Charter. In 1991 they simply “swapped the nameplate” from the USSR to the Russian Federation. Correcting this injustice is exactly what we are actively working on together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, with which we have signed a memorandum.

At the time, the West completely ignored the importance of reforming this process. The world closed its eyes to the fact that the USSR had held half of Europe in captivity for decades (Ukraine, Poland, Czechia, and others) and allowed Russia to automatically seize the seat on the Security Council. Moreover, if you open the UN Charter today, you will not find the words “Russian Federation” in it. It still says “USSR.” International diplomacy pretends we are still living in the 1990s. This creates a total crisis of legitimacy for the organization.

Paradoxically, on July 9 the UN Security Council met in an emergency session over yet another massive Russian attack on Ukraine. Ukraine urged the UN Security Council to immediately introduce a ceasefire resolution.

A representative of the aggressor state still sits there, justifying every Russian strike. Isn’t that a slap in the face of democracy?

— For Russia, the UN — and especially the seat on the Security Council — is one of the main tools for legitimizing its aggression and for international blackmail. Medvedev himself openly declared that they are ready to fight for the Security Council seat and hold on to it to the last. He said outright that Russia rests on three pillars: nuclear weapons, great culture, and the seat on the UN Security Council. Thanks to its veto power, Russia was literally buying itself weapons — the very same Iranian Shahed drones. The Kremlin directly promised Tehran to block any sanctions resolutions against Iran in the Security Council in exchange for drones. Russia and the USSR have historically used the veto more than anyone else in the world, simply paralyzing international law. They use the UN rostrum to broadcast propaganda and justify war crimes.

On top of that, many international structures are infiltrated by Russians. When senior officials or experts of international organizations suddenly turn out to have accounts in certain Russian banks, what objectivity can we talk about? That is why losing this platform would be diplomatic death for Moscow.

— This petition carries enormous advocacy weight. The platform currently shows an interim goal of 500,000 signatures, set automatically by the system, but our aim is to reach a million and more. This will allow us to officially submit these demands, backed by colossal public pressure, for consideration by the UN General Assembly.

The international petition “Kick Russia out of the UN” on Change.org has gathered more than 392,000 signatures so far. Does this idea look like fantasy, or can this instrument actually work?

Every signature is not just a click. It is an instrument of influence. We call on people not only to sign but also to spread the word and to write letters to European and American members of congress and parliaments, adding the legal grounds for the unlawfulness of Russia’s presence in the UN. Since the UN is a structure financed by its member states, we can put pressure on it through the governments of those states. We must make the UN work for its own money and by its own Charter.

If Russia keeps its current status, what risks does that create for the global security system? And what do you see the international architecture looking like after the war ends?

— If everything is left as it is, we will get a “Weimar Republic” effect — the situation in Germany after the First World War that led directly to the Second. If the regime in Russia does not undergo a complete transformation, any easing or lifting of sanctions will simply give the aggressor time to build up strength for a new, even bloodier strike.

What changes in international law can and should become the legacy of this war, so that similar tragedies can be avoided in the future?

— It is hardly possible to avoid wars in the world entirely, since human nature does not change. But we are capable of minimizing the risks.

First, an effective European counterpart to NATO must be created — a tough coalition of countries that face direct threats to their borders and are ready to act instantly. Ukraine will be an indispensable, key defense factor in this system.

Second, this war has clearly exposed the vulnerability of the weapons supply system, when third countries or partners can block the transfer of missiles or equipment at the most critical moment because of political disputes or fear of “escalation.” A new treaty system is needed: if a country comes under aggression, assistance must be provided automatically, without any domestic political bargaining or restrictions on using weapons for self-defense.

Today the Baltic states understand perfectly well: if Putin attacks them, they may be left on their own if political wavering begins in the United States or other Alliance countries. The collective security system must be automated, with the decision to use force in response to aggression taken instantly and jointly.

Ukraine’s Defense Forces have already proven on the battlefield that they can stand up to the Russian empire. Ukrainian drones and missiles fly 3,000 kilometers deep into Russia. All of this is our achievement and our strength, and that is exactly why we now have the right to set the agenda and demand change, including in organizations such as the UN. The full restoration of our borders, followed by the launch of mechanisms of enforced demilitarization and the liberation of the peoples enslaved by Russia, is the only chance for the entire civilized world to survive and build a secure future.