Fact check: Refuting the lie that "Russia can't be kicked out of the UN" - "KickRussiaOut" is a disinformation site.

Millions of people have been PUT OFF by this PSY-OP petition and web site, demanding UNNECESSARY and IMPOSSIBLE action. Read the facts, the law, and the ONLY WAY to expel the Moscow impostors.

Millions of people have been PUT OFF by the “#KickRussiaOut”, #UnRussiaUN” PSY-OP petition and web site, demanding UNNECESSARY and IMPOSSIBLE action. Read the facts, the law, and the ONLY WAY to expel the Moscow impostors.

This petition is a psy-op and a decoy.

Psy-op: It asks for something impossible. When people who sign it are told its impossible, they give up and shut off, believing they can’t do anything.

Decoy: People who have signed it won’t even look at any other petition. They believe they are all the same. They believe the psy-op - that it’s impossible.

Here’s the real petition. with the real facts and law. and the real, simple, fast, legal, permanent solution:

The real petition Click to sign or view

There is a lot of highly sophisticated, expensively funded disinformation from bought and/or “useful idiot” “experts” on the internet.

https://kickrussiaout.info is one of the biggest.

This web site is designed to capture all people who want Russia out of the UN, and convince them that it is impossible.

And to put people off looking at any real petition.

“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”

-Joseph Goebbels

https://kickrussiaout.info

It’s been promoted through Time magazine, featured on UATV, and repeats the lie propagated by corrupt US, Nato administrations and the Secretary-General of the UN.

It’s in Russian and English.

Why believe me, against so many “experts”?

1. I am a lawyer. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the facts and law below, but it does help to locate the information, and isolate the issues, which I have done for you.

2. I noticed that, despite all the erudite sounding pronouncements, not a single piece of analysis is to be found on this web site. (Nor any links to voluminous evidence on the net.)

3. I also noticed that there are not so many “experts” listed as supporting the site. More like a hand-picked few. No women. This heightened my suspicion as I would expect a cause like this to have hundreds or thousands of named sponsors, if it were genuine.

4. So, I stepped through, researched each of the questions and fact checked each of the propositions on the web site, searching for the original sources. My findings are below, with the sources.

5. You can verify each of these steps and confirm for yourself. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand them. All images are links to their original sources.

The lies that the lie is based on

“Problem information” is not problem information. In the classic technique of disinformation, this statement is a mixture of truth and lies. It identifies some questions, then provides no, or false, answers.

• “The UN Security Council demonstrated a precedent of requiring a special resolution of the General assembly to confirm the succession of a permanent member in the case of a state/constitution change” Is complete garbage.

  • the Security Council “demonstrated” nothing of the sort. The Security Council doesn’t “demonstrate” things.

  • there has never been any suggestion of any requirement at all for the General Assembly to “confirm” anything.

  • “the succession of a permanent member in the case of a state/constitution change” is just word salad jumbling 3 different concepts.

    • In fact the law specifically rules that

      • Change of Constitution: a state can change its constitution at any time. Constitutions are the internal business of states, nothing to do with succession or UN membership.

      • succession: has nothing to do with either inheritance, membership or constitutions — it is a technical international law term meaning a different state taking over responsibility for territory. As when Russia left the USSR on 8 December 1991, it became a new state which took over international responsibility for the territory of the former RSFSR.

      • “succession of a permanent member in the case of a state change”: there is no “succession” (meaning inheritance) of any UN membership, under any circumstances: it is not allowed. Memberships are non-transferable.

• “Given the fact that the UN Secretary General did not ignore Boris Yeltsin’s letter and asked the President of the Security Council to inform all members of its content; that none of the Security Council members raised any objections to Yeltsin’s request to confirm the authority of the Russian Federation in UN structures as well as change the representatives of the USSR at the UN into representatives of Russia — the process of restoring justice will not be easy”

  • “the process of restoring justice” is very easy if you don’t jumble fact and lies. Let’s break it down:

  • “asked the President of the Security Council to inform all members of its content” is weasel words covering the truth:

    • there is no evidence the Secretary-General asked the President. The UN publishes the most minor of correspondence. There is no such letter on record.

    • the “President of the Security Council“ was the traitor USSR Permanent Representative. Who handed Yeltsin’s letter TO the Secretary-General. It is the Secretary-General’s job to physically circulate documents. He didn’t. Yeltsin’s letter was never accepted as a UN document. It was hidden in a manila envelope marked “strictly confidential”.

    • The site’s blurb cunningly doesn’t say that “the members of the Security Council were informed” - because they weren’t.

    • There was no “request to confirm the authority“. The Yeltsin letter was a bald statement. It did not even claim any authority - for good reason - there was no possible authority.

    • “none of the Security Council members raised any objections”: No, because the letter was hidden, the transaction was passed off as a change of name by the USSR. Countries changing their names is their internal business and nothing to do with the UN. It does not require consent. They raised no objections because they had no opportunity to do so. Until now.

The psy-op site creates a problem by hiding the solution, then says it is impossible to solve.

It pretends that all these important sounding people are working to resolve the non-existent “problem”.

• Making submissions to Davos!!! An organisation which has nothing to do with the solution to the issue; and doesn’t want the UN’s sovereignty, human rights and democracy.

• “options for legal solutions” … “planning an international campaign” — ???

  • The Russian delegation are trespassers. You don’t need a “campaign”.

  • You need 1 country to table a resolution directing the Secretary-General to do his job to keep trespassers out - which is exactly what was done in 1971 when the US lied that Taiwan was a member.

  • It only needs a simple majority of votes in the General Assembly. Abstentions aren’t counted. It can be passed and done in a week. No one is going to vote against it.

  • “prerequisite for further reform”: ah, here we’re opening up what Russia wants: we are told the UN needs “reform” and that Russia will block any “reform” with its non-existent veto, unless it is GIVEN the non-existent veto. And in the meantime has worked since 1991 to block the UN’s powers and make it look “toothless” and needing either reform or abolition.

• “plan for academic research of the problem”: which has already been done elsewhere, (Here’s my comprehensive collection and analysis of the facts, the law, and all the source documents, in one place):

  ---

  ---

• … research which it hasn’t “done” in the however many years this organisation has been in existence, and which is nowhere to be found on its web site.

It creates false facts - which support Russia’s claim, while creating complications that don’t exist: - for example

• a “seat” — there is no such thing as a “seat”. memberships attach to the member state. They are not transferable. Memberships are extinguished when the holders cease to exist. “Redistribution of ‘the seat’” is not possible.

• “Options for legal solutions” … there are no options. The Russian delegation does not represent any member, it should not be there. Russia can join any time it wants. It can ask the UN to amend its Charter to make Russia a permanent member, if it wants. That is up to Russia. In the meantime, the violation of the UN Charter must be remedied immediately.

• “Tacit consent” - there is no evidence of any “consent” — even if it was possible to “consent” to a violation of the Law.

  • The documents were hidden by the Secretariat. They were never circulated. the only indication is that it was passed off as a name change of the USSR.

Not a single authority for any statement is given.

So, let’s go through them. (Oops, repetition - to be sorted one day)

1. “In order to consider what legacy Russia has illegally appropriated for itself, ‘it is necessary to consider the history of the creation and liquidation of the Soviet Union’”

This history is not shown on the web site. So I re-did the research:

1. The history of the creation and liquidation of the USSR is completely irrelevant.

2. There are only 3 questions:

   1. is there a provision for succession by Russia that is valid under the UN Charter, (No.)

   2. was there some way Russia can claim it “became” the USSR, (No. it had broken away from the USSR.)

   3. is there any other way Russia could “inherit”? (No.)

3. Was there some provision by the USSR giving it’s UN membership (or anything else) to Russia when it ceased to exist? Answer: Nope.

   1. Not in the Constitution of the USSR.

   2. Not in the agreement to create the USSR.

   3. Not in the documents ending the USSR

   4. Not in any other document created by the USSR.

4. Did Russia “become” the USSR? Nope. It left the USSR on 12 December 1991 when it ratified the Belavezha Accord signed by Yeltsin on 8 December 1991. 2 weeks before it claimed the USSR’s UN memberships.

2. “UN Security Council demonstrated a precedent of requiring a special resolution of the "General assembly to confirm the succession of a permanent member in the case of a state/constitution change.”

This is a complete lie. It is straight out of the Kremlin propaganda copybook. It is also the dream of the Kremlin.

1. What is “succession”? In international law, it is the transfer of international control of a territory from one state to another. In the case of the USSR, the transfer of each Republic’s defined territory from the USSR to the seceding republic.

2. Transfer of control of territory is just that. It does not transfer treaty or other rights and obligations attached to the state which previously controlled the territory.

3. What the history - THE LAW, actually shows is that there is no “succession” of either permanent or other memberships of the UN. “Succession” of UN memberships is explicitly and clearly ruled out.

4. There have only ever been 2 attempts to seek “succession”, and only one of those has been acknowledged.

5. That is the claim by Serbia and Montenegro to ““continue“the membership of the former Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia, after the complete disintegration of the Federation into 5 states warring each other. That attempt was rejected by the UNSC in A/RES/777 1992, on the ground that the Former Republic had ceased to exist.

   

6. Note the word “consider”. It is not a decision, it is an interpretation. Note further the word “recommends”: the SC does not have delegated authority in the Charter to make decisions on whether a membership claim is valid.

   

7. At the insistence of Russia (unlawfully participating), the words “and it has not been generally accepted” were added. However these words add nothing legally, because nothing in the UN Charter allows succession at all. To permit transfer of a membership by “general acceptance” would require an amendment to the Charter under Article 108.

8. The KickRussiaOut website, however, fudges the concept of “succession“, by implying that succession occurs in the case of “changes” to an existing state which hasn’t ceased to exist, a false premise which allows it to argue that succession is allowed. That is obviously not the case. Existing members cannot “succeed” to themselves.

9. A further convenient consequence of this fudging leads to the scare tactic of suggesting the UK would cease to be a permanent member if Scotland seceded, if Russia was not allowed to grab the USSR’s membership. That is a based on a false premise. The UK would not cease to exist, like the USSR did. Likewise the secession of Taiwan would not cause China to cease to exist.

10. There has not been any ‘“succession” of a permanent or other UN member “in the case of a state/constitution change.”

11. The US changed it’s constitution in 1962, 1965 and 1971. No “special resolution of the General assembly to confirm the succession” is required in the case of a “constitution change”.

12. It appears that this statement has twisted the expulsion of unlawful representatives of a government which had changed, out of all recognition. A/RES/2758 in 1971 was simply recognising the valid government of an existing member, there was no “succession”. There was no change of the state member. It did not cease to exist. It was exactly the same as if Trump had claimed the US membership rights after he lost the election.

3. “the process of restoring justice will not be easy.”

The ultimate total lie of this organisation and web site. It is very easy to oust impostors, because 2 important decisions have already been made. It could have been passed instead of the pathetic hand-wringing “condemnation” resolution by 143/192 (74%) member states on 2 March 2022, or any one of the resolutions since then. 6 says after the “veto” on 25 February 2022.

“the former USSR’s seat”

seat meaning - Legal definition - World Law Dictionary: “an official position as a member of a committee, council, board of directors or legislative body etc.”

“Seat” can give the impression that it remains after someone got out of it. So. let’s call it membership, to save confusion.

The UN Charter provided for 15 members of the Security Council.

4. “Given the fact that the UN Secretary General did not ignore Boris Yeltsin’s letter and asked the President of the Security Council to inform all members of its content;

This is hilarious. Who is supposed to circulate material in the UN? The Secretary-General. And who was the President of the Security Council? The person who delivered Yeltsin’s letter to the Secretary-General, the traitor USSR representative, Yuli Vorontsov. Who the Secretary-General forthwith accepted as the permanent Representative of a state which was not a member of the UN. And approved a name change of a member country which never requested it, to the name of said non-member state.

How tacky can you get: “Asked the President to inform the members”? More like the said President saying “don’t worry about the required procedure of circulating the letter and tabling it in the General Assembly, I’ll “advise” everyone. Trust me, bro”.

What this site doesn’t point out is apparent on the UN web site: the letter was never circulated, it was never considered, and Vorontsov, the Secretary-General, and the representatives of US, UK and France simply pretended it was a change of name. Moreover, the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly required by the UN Charter itself states “the Secretary-General wrote to the President” asking him to circulate Yeltsin’s letter. Well, there is a letter from the Secretary-General to the President that day. But none about Yeltsin’s letter.¹

This became apparent gradually. But was easily ascertainable by the writer.

“that none of the Security Council members raised any objections to Yeltsin’s request to confirm the authority of the Russian Federation in UN structures as well as change the representatives of the USSR at the UN into representatives of Russia”

Other lies

“Russia inherited the UN memberships and veto from the USSR”

“Russia paid all the USSR’s debts”

“Russia can veto any attempt to throw it out” [Russia doesn’t have a veto, remember?]

“China would veto any attempt to throw Russia out” [There is no power to veto expulsion of impostors.]

“It would throw the world into chaos” [Ahhhhahahaha… throw it out of chaos.]

“Russia has nukes” [So… it’s going to nuke the world, for complying with the UN Charter??? Who’s Putin going to nuke? And where’s he going to hide, after he’s been kicked out of the UN and nuked everyone?]

“It would

The facts

For a breakdown of the full facts and law with all source documents: see

The resolution

Now you know the truth, sign and share the real petition.

Post script:

I haven’t finished this. What I have pointed out above so far is enough to vindicate the title of this article.

This was my first article, which propelled me into my research.

The disinformation pointed out above has been fully canvassed and corrected in a series of subsequent articles, feel free to make the comparisons yourself:

1. There was no agenda item on any meeting relating to the letter. 18 months later it was confirmed it had not been considered, hidden in the annual report which the UN Charter itself requires Security Council to make to the General Assembly.

For details of full extent of the concealment of the letter, see