The United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, for example, is a big scene for representatives of all countries to gather, speech on the table, shake hands, and the atmosphere looks bustling.
But behind this world’s largest diplomatic stage, one thing is especially striking: Russia’s foreign ministers suddenly spoke at the meeting, proposing an expansion of the Security Council to support India and Brazil as new permanent members.
As soon as this proposal was thrown out, it immediately triggered a series of reactions. In particular, the name of India immediately reminds people of the history of Sino-Indian border friction, geopolitical competition and frequent confrontation on international occasions.
Will China let its “old head” into the core circle of the Security Council?
What is Russia in the game?
Russia's proposal this time is not an impulse, let alone a casual statement. Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Russia has been diplomatically contained by Western countries and has had a hard time.
Originally close relations with Europe and the United States, now it is running into a wall everywhere. As a result, it turned its attention to the countries of the "Global South", that is, those developing countries that do not completely stand in the American camp and do not have enough voice in international organizations.
In such a broad context, Russia proposes an expansionary Security Council, supporting India and Brazil, appears to have more countries represented, and actually wants to pull these countries together and stand on their own side.
India has long-term good relations with Russia, weapons and arms trade continues to cooperate, and there is also some silence between each other. and Brazil, as a great country in Latin America, if it can be drawn into the Security Council, for Russia is like putting a small flag in the backyard of the United States.
From Russia's point of view, doing so will not only win a good reputation of "fairness" and "multipolarity" in the United Nations, but also actually attract allies in the Security Council and help itself speak on key issues.
In the end, it is to change the situation where the power of speech in the Security Council is now overly concentrated in US-British language, and to promote a situation that can make itself more advantageous with the slogan "reform".
But the question is, who supports who comes in, is not Russia said to count. The Security Council reform has been talked about for decades, everyone has said to change, but when it comes to how to change, to what extent, the opinion is not immediately on the calibre.
The five countries should nod, and none of them should be left behind
The expansion of the Security Council is not as easy as simply adding a few seats.It involves the amendment of the UN Charter, which is not a document that can be changed.
The most crucial one: all five existing permanent members must agree. If any country says "no", the matter will be stranded. It's like a five-member group voting. As long as one person opposes it, the proposal won't be passed.
At present, the United States, Britain, and France are not very tough on India’s entry into the Security Council, and can even be said to be somewhat welcome.The United States has always regarded India as an “important strategic partner”, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, and it hopes India can hold on to China’s influence to some extent.
Britain and France also have their own small calculators, their national strength has long since declined considerably compared to the Cold War period, and they want to balance the influence of China and Russia by pulling more “owners” in by expanding.
But when things came to China, things became more complicated. China has openly supported Security Council reforms, emphasizing the need to increase the representation of developing countries.But that doesn’t mean supporting “everyone can move forward”, especially India’s neighboring country with complex historical conflicts.
Up to now, there are still unresolved border issues between China and India, and they often have different positions on international affairs. Once India becomes a permanent member and has veto power, there will be one more "old enemy" in the Security Council who may confront China in the future.
From this perspective, China's attitude toward India is reserved, as far as Brazil is concerned, China has cooperated with it a lot in the past, and the relationship within the BRICS mechanism is still possible.
If it were to discuss Brazil alone, China would not necessarily oppose it.But Russia, this time bound India and Brazil together, argued that it was difficult for China to choose just one point in such a package of proposals.
Another problem is that membership expansion is a global issue, not just between China, the United States and Russia. Even if the five permanent members nod, other countries may not be convinced.
Pakistan, for example, has made it clear that it is resolutely opposed to Indian custom; in Latin America, Brazil is not without opponents, and Argentina and Mexico are skeptical about its "representative qualification".
On the other side of Africa, it is even more difficult to reach a consensus, who can represent this position in Africa, without discussing the outcome for decades.
It is beautiful to think, it is difficult to do.
Even if all countries are a little interested in expansion, the difficulty is much greater than imagined when it is really implemented.The most central issue is that the “veto right” is not given to new countries.
The reason why the status of permanent members is special depends on this veto. Once a country has veto power, its right to speak in the United Nations will be different.
But it is precisely because this ticket is so important that the existing five often do not have a single number of people willing to easily increase that power.
If not given a veto to India and Brazil, they might feel like they are “second-class permanent members,” notorious and unwilling to accept; but if given, the Security Council’s decision-making mechanisms on key issues would become more complicated, even in a situation where “everyone can beat you.”
At present, the five permanent members are often deadlocked on some issues, and I'm afraid it will be even more difficult to promote concerted action after the seventh permanent members.
Not to mention, there are still quarrels in different regions about who is more qualified to represent themselves. Asia not only has India, but also Japan has always wanted to enter; In addition to Britain and France, Europe is also eyeing up Germany; Dozens of countries in Africa want to compete for that position.
This mentality of "you go in and I will go in" has turned the Security Council reform into a global battle, which seems to be bustling, and is actually difficult to do.
Russia’s proposal of “Indo-Pakistan” is more like a diplomatic test, and it doesn’t necessarily really expect it to happen right away, but in this way, it tells the world that we are not marginalized, we still have something to say on the international stage.
In this way, it also shapes itself as a force “representing the global South” and tries to attract more support in developing countries.
From the perspective of China, the Security Council reform is indeed to be done sooner or later, but how to change, which step to change, must be taken into account the reality and long-term impact.
Especially when it comes to the change of members who have the right to veto, China cannot be careless and cautious.In the face of the national interests, there is no "compliance" with the situation.No matter what the outside world says, the final decision-making right depends on whether or not China's position agrees.
The door of reform is open, but not everyone can enter.
This discussion of “expansion” is ultimately a redistribution of international power.
Apparently in order to make the United Nations fairer, practically every country is accounting for its own interests. While Russia’s proposal is eye-catching, in a complex international landscape it looks more like a massive diplomatic move than a plan that can land immediately.
Whether India can become a permanent member of the council does not depend on Russia or the United States, but on whether China is willing to open the door to a strategic opponent.
In the current international situation, this door will not be easily opened.
This idea, although it sounds like a trend, but really needs to be realized, and has had a lot of problems.
In the short term, this reform is more likely to be a sawing battle than a rapid change.The final outcome may have to wait for the next decade to be revealed slowly.
Information source: Lavrov: Support Brazil and India's "permanent membership" in the Security Council-2025-09-28 13: 30 · Reference news