THE UNITED NATIONS MUST REDEFINE ITSELF IMMEDIATELY, IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN WORLD EVENTS. VERY QUICKLY IT MUST FIND A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION WHICH REAPPEARS ANYTIME SOMEONE PUTS THE NUCLEAR GUN BACK ON THE TABLE, AS PUTIN HAS RECENTLY DONE.

When the UN Security Council cannot prevent aggression by any one or more of its permanent members, particularly the threat to use Nuclear Weapons, it has failed in its service to humanity.

Be it resolved that Russia must immediately forfeit it's seat on the UN Security Council, and also it's Permanent Member status in the General Assembly. This status was improperly inherited from the USSR upon its dissolution and is no longer appropriate. It is no longer he same entity it previously was.

Russia should only be allowed Non-Permanent Member status until it complies with the basic premise of non-aggression expected from every Permanent member as a necessary condition to maintain its status.

This could be accomplished by a simple vote presented to the 193 member UN General Assembly.

It is hypocrital, and embarrassing when all of the permanent members of the Security Council represent exactly the same nations who possess the biggest surplus of weapons; between them gazillions of nuclear weapons, from which they exclusively profit in sales, distribution, and proliferation, to the rest of the world's detriment.This fact alone, clearly demonstrates that the make-up of so-called 'Security Council' may present the biggest obstacle to World Peace. 

The proposition:

If the Security Council is to be preserved, including the 10 non-permanent member states, changes will have to made, if not in makeup, at least in a redistribution of voting power. This could be done easily,with only modest adaptation.

Currently Security Council rules currently disallow voting power to the 10 non-permanent members.

Considering they represent 66.6% of the Security Council (the non-permanent members) it would only be sensible that they have comparable influence when deciding key issues.
.
Consequently it is hereby proposed that the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council shall collectively have 2 votes (or .2 votes per country.)

This theoretically would provide counterbalance  to outweigh the strength of any individual Permanent Member yet still preserve the integrity of the 'Security Council Idea' without giving any one nation-state 'too much' power. 

Instead of 5 members with 5 votes there would be 15 members with a total of 7 votes. While this arrangement might, in itself, assure the intended result, it is proposed that all newly elected non-permanent members represent non-nuclear countries to ensure alignment with the principle of disarmament.                                                                              With five non-permanent member states carrying the same value and power as one Permanent Member, then two groups of non-permanent members would become the automatic tie-breaker in the case of any disagreement between permanent members. Veto could then only be exercised with 4 out of 7 votes. Similarly no motion could be adopted without 4 votes.

If that didn't resolve the matter, it would be sent to a vote between all 193 nation-state members. This principle shall be applied in every discussion, transaction, and arrangement of any kind within the context of The United Nations proper, or communications between individual, or groups of nation states directly. 

It follows that no one party (nor two or more, unless a majority of total members) could ever assert veto power. Then some progress might be made.

This redefinition theoretically could be accomplished by a general vote among ALL of the nation state members of the United Nations to immediately adapt these recommendations.

It should be made clear immediately that Russia forfeits its status as a member of the Security Council, along with its power of veto, because of its acts of aggression toward Ukraine (decided by majority vote put before the General Assembly of 193 member nations.)

Putin conquers by firepower, destroying everything in his path, bombing neighbourhoods made up of families; women, men and children alike rather than attacking military forces head on, until the fear of more brutal attacks is sufficient to bring about surrender. The targetting of civilians is a war crime cowardly used to avoid direct military conflict until it is becomes desirable to take advantage of some weakness in the opposition's defensive measures. His campaign of violence must be curtailed immediately by a resolution put before the general assembly of 193 member nation-states.