The discussions about reforming the UN Security Council have intensified, with prominent diplomats voicing concerns about how representative the current body actually is. Dmitry Polyansky, who serves as Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, recently spoke with a major newspaper to share his assessment. He noted that the Security Council’s makeup does not reflect today’s global landscape, highlighting that a large portion of member states align with Western positions. He emphasized that a shift in representation is overdue and that many observers share that sentiment.
Polyansky also pointed to concrete proposals aimed at reshaping the council. Among the ideas circulating in capitals around the world is a push to expand the number of participating nations. Moscow has proposed increasing the council’s membership to around twenty. This expansion, supporters argue, would better mirror contemporary geopolitical realities and give a broader set of states a voice in matters of international peace and security.
However, the diplomat cautioned that enlarging the council carries risks. A common worry is that adding more members could dilute accountability and turn the chamber into a forum where little concrete progress is achieved, described by some as a place for discussion without decisive action. The balance between inclusivity and effectiveness remains a central question in any reform debate.
Meanwhile, former Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has weighed in with a strong statement on the need for change. Erdogan argued that the UN Security Council cannot determine humanity’s fate as things stand and called for structural reforms that would restore legitimacy to the institution. His position adds to a chorus of voices insisting that the council must adapt to the realities of a multipolar world, where power is more diffuse and regional concerns demand greater attention.
Experts and policymakers continue to debate the best path forward. Some advocate for a more radical overhaul that would redefine veto rights, alter the balance of permanent versus rotating seats, and introduce new criteria for membership based on factors such as regional representation and development status. Others favor incremental reforms that would preserve existing power dynamics while expanding participation, arguing that small, carefully designed changes could steadily improve legitimacy without provoking a fracture in the current system. The discussions also touch on how reform would affect decision-making processes, accountability mechanisms, and the role of the UN as a whole in crisis response and governance. The overarching aim remains clear: to create a Security Council that better reflects today’s world order while preserving the ability to act decisively when crises arise. [Citation: International press coverage, various state and regional statements]