Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "David Lammy calls Russia a "mafia state" in unbelievable speech at the UN" video.

  1.  @АлёшаА-ъ7п  the short answer is - for the same reason that Russia is not expelled. The USA is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and, like Russia, can always veto any such proposal. The long answer is more nuanced: The legality of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which included Serbia) in 1999 remains a debated topic under international law. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state unless it is in self-defense or has been authorized by the UN Security Council. The NATO bombing was not explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, which raised questions about its legality under the Charter. NATO justified the bombing as a humanitarian intervention, aiming to stop the mass atrocities against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. While this rationale is ethically compelling, there was no established legal basis under international law for humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorisation at the time. The concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which supports humanitarian intervention under specific circumstances, was formally recognized only later, in 2005. Some scholars argue that the NATO intervention could be justified under evolving customary international law, which may allow for humanitarian intervention to prevent grave human rights abuses. However, this remains a contentious view, as not all states agree on the legal grounds for such interventions. There is a distinction between legality and legitimacy. Many argued that while the bombing might have been illegal under strict interpretations of international law (due to the lack of UN authorization), it was legitimate from a moral standpoint given the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. In summary, while the NATO bombing of Serbia was not explicitly legal under the UN Charter as it lacked Security Council authorization, it was argued by some to be legitimate due to humanitarian reasons. The legality of such actions is still a subject of debate among international law experts, reflecting the complexities of interpreting humanitarian intervention within the framework of international law.
    5
  2. Russia cannot be voted out of the United Nations primarily because it is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5), which also includes the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and France. These countries have special privileges, including the power to veto any substantive resolution in the Security Council. This veto power effectively gives any P5 member the ability to block any action, including a vote to remove them or to make significant changes to the structure of the UN itself. For a country to be expelled from the UN, a resolution must be passed by the Security Council, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly. Since Russia has veto power in the Security Council, it can block any proposal aiming to remove it from the organisation.
    1