Moscow State University professor: They will try to expel Russia from the UN Security Council

The arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for the Russian President serves several purposes.

This opinion, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports, is expressed by Alexey Fenenko, professor of the Department of International Security at the Faculty of World Politics of Moscow State University.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“The ICC warrant serves several purposes. It is intended to show the Kremlin: if we want, we will organize a trial. It creates the possibility of putting pressure on the Russian government: you can be arrested everywhere as “accomplices.” It is intended to limit the mobility of the Russian elite: “Think about whether to go if they might arrest you.” And most importantly, the warrant must demonstrate the vulnerability of the Russian president if he goes on a visit to another country and if the government in the Russian Federation changes in the future,” writes Fenenko in Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

In addition, the expert continues, the United States and allies are trying to show that they perceive the Russian President on a par with “problematic” leaders like Bashar Assad and Robert Mugabe.

“In the worst case, like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic. The West wants to demonstrate that the Russian president is vulnerable to their legal system, but Western leaders are not vulnerable to the Russian one. Consequently, Russia’s status as a vulnerable state is incomparable with their status – countries that decide on whom to conduct an international trial,” the author continues.

In addition, he reminds that the West dreams of expelling Russia from the UN Security Council.

“We often tend to underestimate such a scenario of “humanitarian aggression.” But the argument “this cannot happen because it can never happen” is very dangerous. Let’s imagine a scenario: several high-ranking Russian officials are arrested in certain countries, three permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Britain and France) vote to suspend Russia’s membership, and the PRC abstains, based, for example, on “economic interests.”

Despite all the outrage, the United States refuses to provide visas to Russian diplomats. For example, two resolutions will be submitted to the UN General Assembly meeting: “On the equal responsibility of communism and Nazism for the outbreak of the Second World War” and “On the temporary suspension of Russia’s membership in the UN Security Council until the end of the investigation.” References to the law will not help here: the United States is capable of denying visas to Russian diplomats, citing their agreement to implement the decisions of the UN General Assembly,” the professor notes.

According to him, this negative scenario is one of the few that can await our country in the near future.

“We need to start preparing to reflect it now, but by and large, this should have been done starting in 2009. The main component of the preparation should be Russia’s rejection of Gorbachev’s principle of the priority of international law over Russian law. (The United States is a classic example of a country that postulates the priority of domestic law over international law.) Attempts to preserve the priorities of international law in some areas will only lead to the creation of a foundation for an attack on Russia in this area. There is no point in hoping that the West will “cool down,” Fenenko sums up.