The relation between the USSR and various international organizations is a subject of a separate study. However, it is important to focus, as concisely as possible, on the two most prominent international organizations that the world has known (the League of Nations and the United Nations) and the stance of the USSR, the first socialist state in the world, towards those organizations.
After the end of the First Word War, the victorious forces founded the League of Nations (LON) in 1919, which operated until 1939 and was formally dissolved in 1946. They did so in an effort to secure the status quo and to continue distributing the territories and markets in their favour, as well as to impede the development of the international revolutionary movement and the prestige that Soviet Russia carried among the peoples,. The LON, like all imperialist unions, acted in the name of “maintaining peace”, “consolidating security”, and resolving differences by peaceful and diplomatic means.
Lenin, in the Programme of the RCP (B), revealed the true reasons behind its emergence: “The growing proletarian offensive, especially when it is victorious in various countries, increases the resistance of the exploiters and induces them to create new forms of international associations of capitalists (the League of Nations, etc.), which while organizing, on a world scale, the systematic exploitation of all the nations of the world, at present direct their efforts towards the immediate suppression of the revolutionary movements of the proletariat of all countries”. 
The League of Nations quickly showed its teeth to the fledgling Soviet Republic, blatantly supporting the counterrevolution and naturally the 14 countries that attempted to crush the Bolsheviks’ Russian Revolution by launching a military offensive. Lenin, known for his trenchant remarks, could not leave this support unchallenged: “You recently passed a resolution to the effect that the international League of Nations of the Allied powers recognized Kolchak as the only authoritative Russian ruler. And after that nothing was seen of Kolchak but a pair of clean heels”. 
At the same time, the leader of the October Revolution decried the social democratic forces that openly supported the LON: “Social-chauvinism was the principal and fundamental type of opportunism, i.e. support of “defence of country”, which in such a war was really equivalent to defence of the predatory interests of one’s “own” bourgeoisie. After the war, defence of the robber League of Nations, defence of direct or indirect alliances with the bourgeoisie of one’s own country against the revolutionary proletariat and the “Soviet” movement, and defence of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois parliamentarianism against “Soviet power” became the principal manifestations of those intolerable and treacherous compromises”. 
Lenin identified the severe inter-imperialist contradictions bred by this predatory alliance, even concerning its future stance towards Soviet Russia: “At every step the interests of the League’s member states are patently in conflict […] It became plain that the League of Nations was non-existent, that the alliance of the capitalist powers is sheer fraud, and that in actual fact it is an alliance of robbers, each trying to snatch something from the others”. 
Lenin foresaw the development of this “great united league, of all the foremost nations of the world”, as he mockingly characterized it, long before the collapse of the LON. “Unity of this kind is a sheer fiction, a sheer fraud, a sheer lie. And we have seen —and this was a great example— that this notorious League of Nations, which attempted to hand out mandates for the government of states, to divide up the world —that this notorious alliance proved to be a soap-bubble which at once burst, because it was an alliance founded on capitalist property”. 
Soviet Russia, under conditions of its isolation, clearly specified the main line of its international relations; on the one hand, the greatest possible commercial, economic, and political cooperation with the capitalist states in order to end its isolation and on the other hand, the steadfast support of the revolutionary movement across the world.
As demonstrated by its participation in the international economic and financial Conference of Genoa (1922), Soviet Russia sought and succeeded in benefitting from the inter-imperialist contradictions as regards the stance towards it. In response to the foreign creditor states’ claim for payment of all the debts of the Tsarist and Provisional government (18.5 billion gold roubles), it claimed the compensation for the damages caused by the foreign imperialist intervention (39 billion gold roubles). Furthermore, with a manoeuvre, it accepted the simultaneous and mutual prescription of both parties’ claims in exchange for the restoration of diplomatic and economic relations, thus breaking the “united front” against the USSR. At the same time, not only in Genoa, but later in various committees of the LON on disarmament, in which the USSR took part despite not being a member of the LON, it promoted the position of immediate and complete disarmament, revealing the role of the LON: “Or take, for example, the recent declarations of the Soviet delegation in Geneva on the question of genuine disarmament (and not window-dressing). What is the explanation of the fact that Comrade Litvinov’s straightforward and honest declaration in favour of complete disarmament struck the League of Nations with paralysis and came as a ‘complete surprise’ to it? Does not this fact show that the League of Nations is not an instrument of peace and disarmament, but an instrument for covering up new armaments and the preparation of new wars?”. 
Stalin, referring to the increase of armaments (1925) characterized imperialist peace as “armed peace”, criticizing the role of the LON and of the Second International: “There you have an example of the matchless hypocrisy of bourgeois diplomacy, when by shouting and singing about peace they try to cover up preparations for a new war […] What have the League of Nations and the Second International done to put a stop to this furious growth of armaments? Don’t they know that with the growth of armaments ‘the guns begin to go off of their own accord’? Don’t expect a reply from the League of Nations and the Second International. The point here is that the conflict of interests among the victor countries is growing and becoming more intense, that a collision among them is becoming inevitable, and, in anticipation of a new war, they are arming with might and main. I shall not be exaggerating if I say that in this case we have not a friendly peace among the victor countries, but an armed peace, a state of armed peace that is fraught with war. What is now going on in the victor countries reminds us very much of the situation that prevailed before the war of 1914 —a state of armed peace.
The rulers of Europe are now trying to cover up this fact with clamour about pacifism. But I have already said what this pacifism is worth and what value should be attached to it. The Bolsheviks have been demanding disarmament ever since the time of Genoa. Why do not the Second International and all the others who are chattering about pacifism support our proposal?”. 
Shortly afterwards (1927), referring to the bombardment of Nanjing (China) by Britain and the USA, he noted: “The League of Nations has been given another slap in the face. For who but lackeys of imperialism can consider it “normal” that one member of the League of Nations massacres the citizens of another member, while the League of Nations itself is compelled to keep silent and assume that the matter does not concern it?”. 
At the same time, the USSR leader explained why the USSR was not a member of the LON: “The Soviet Union is not a member of the League of Nations and does not take part in the League of Nations, firstly, because it does not want to take responsibility for the imperialist policy of the League of Nations, for the “mandates” which are handed out by the League of Nations for the exploitation and oppression of colonial countries. The Soviet Union does not take part in the League of Nations because it is opposed to imperialism, opposed to the oppression of the colonies and dependent countries.
The Soviet Union does not take part in the League of Nations, secondly, because it does not want to take responsibility for the war preparations, for the growth of armaments, for the new military alliances, and so forth, which the League of Nations screens and sanctifies, and which are bound to lead to new imperialist wars. The Soviet Union does not take part in the League of Nations because it is wholly and completely opposed to imperialist wars [...] under present conditions the League of Nations is a “house of assignation” for the imperialist bosses who transact their nefarious business behind the scenes. What is said officially in the League of Nations is mere talk, designed to deceive the people. But what is done unofficially by the imperialist bosses behind the scenes in the League of Nations is real imperialist action, hypocritically covered up by the grandiloquent orators of the League of Nations”. 
Stalin revealed the underlying economic causes of the contradictions within the LON: “The Economic Conference of the League of Nations in 1927, the object of which was to “unite the economic interests” of the capitalist countries, also ended in a fiasco. The peaceful road to the solution of the problem of markets remains closed to capitalism. The only “way out” left open for capitalism is a new re-division of colonies and of spheres of influence by force, by means of armed collisions, by means of new imperialist wars”. 
The foreign policy of the USSR sought to prevent the united front of the imperialists against it by utilizing the existing inter-imperialist contradictions. Stalin noted the contradiction of interests in the camp of the imperialists, the overall interest of several countries to maintain economic relations with the USSR, the reaction of the working class in Europe, and the imperialists’ fear that they would unintentionally ignite a revolution in their own countries in the event of war against the USSR. At the same time, he added that this fact did not mean that Britain would abandon its efforts to organize a united front against the USSR or that it would fail to do so. The war threat would not cease to exist despite Britain’s temporary failures.
Stalin noted: “We must not forget Lenin’s statement that as regards our work of construction very much depends upon whether we succeed in postponing war with the capitalist world, which is inevitable, but which can be postponed either until the moment when the proletarian revolution in Europe matures, or until the moment when the colonial revolutions have fully matured, or, lastly, until the moment when the capitalists come to blows over the division of the colonies. Therefore, the maintenance of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obligatory task for us”. 
However, the foreign policy of the USSR, which was characterized by the pursuit of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries, at the same time proclaimed the promotion of goals for the development of the international communist movement, such as the struggle:
a) for the development of the Communist Parties throughout the world;
b) for the strengthening of the revolutionary trade unions and the workers’ united front against the capitalist offensive;
c) for the strengthening of the friendship between the working class of the USSR and the working class in the capitalist countries;
d) for the strengthening of the link between the working class of the USSR and the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries. 
At the same time it fought bourgeois pacifism with its League of Nations, its preaching of “peace”, its “prohibition” of war, its talk of “disarmament”: “There are naive people who think that since there is imperialist pacifism, there will be no war. That is quite untrue. On the contrary, whoever wishes to get at the truth must reverse this proposition and say: since imperialist pacifism and its League of Nations are flourishing, new imperialist wars and intervention are certain. And the most important thing in all this is that Social-Democracy is the main channel of imperialist pacifism within the working class —consequently, it is capitalism’s main support among the working class in preparing for new wars and intervention”. 
After the withdrawal of Japan (March 1933) and Germany (October 1933), 30 member states of the LON headed by France asked the USSR to join the LON. The USSR sought to utilize the accession to the LON in order to accomplish the main task it had set, that is, to hinder the formation of a united imperialist block against it.
In reply to a question of a US reporter about whether the USSR still had a negative stance towards the LON, Stalin explained: “No, not always and not under all circumstances. Perhaps you do not fully understand our point of view. In spite of Germany’s and Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations —or possibly just because of it— the League may become a certain factor in retarding the outbreak of hostilities or in preventing them altogether. If that is so, if the League can prove to be something of an obstacle that would make war at least somewhat more difficult and peace to some extent easier, then we shall not be against the League. Yes, if such is the course of historical events, the possibility is not excluded that we shall support the League of Nations despite its colossal shortcomings”. 
Thus, the USSR accepted this invitation and became a permanent member of the LON, seeking to obstruct the outbreak of a war after the withdrawal of those two countries. However, the Soviet government warned that it would not assume any obligation as regards the decisions and agreements that the LON had realized before the USSR joined it.
The USSR was expelled from the League of Nations in 1939, a few years before the LON practically ceased functioning, because it responded to Finland’s military provocations. In that period, the fascist axis (Germany, Italy, and Japan) launching a series of military operations was reversing the “scenery” set by the First World War. The Soviet leadership estimated that “the new imperialist war had become a fact”. 
At the same time, it soon saw two causes for the constant submission of the “western democracies” to the fascists; they were afraid that a second imperialist world war might also lead to the victory of the revolution in one or several countries  and at the same time the “western democracies” were trying to turn the fascist countries against the USSR: “The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work; not to hinder Japan, say, from embroiling herself in a war with China, or, better still, with the Soviet Union; to allow all the belligerents to sink deeply into the mire of war, to encourage them surreptitiously in this, to allow them to weaken and exhaust one another; and then, when they have become weak enough, to appear on the scene with fresh strength, to appear, of course, “in the interests of peace,” and to dictate conditions to the enfeebled belligerents”. 
Thus, the main goal of the USSR was to maneuver in order to thwart those plans. As we noted, this was achieved through the “non-aggression pact”, also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which was signed after Britain, France, Italy, and Germany had signed the Munich Pact (1938) that lead to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the annexation of its territories to the German Reich.
The UN was founded in 1945 and reflected a new reality as regards the correlation of forces, where the USSR held an upgraded position due to the role it played in the outcome of the Second World War. At the same time, the danger of war was taking on new dimensions due to the emergence of nuclear weapons.
In 1944, Stalin elaborated the following positions: “There is only one means to this end, apart from the complete disarmament of the aggressor nations: that is to establish a special organization made up of representatives of the peace-loving nations for the defence of peace and safeguarding of security; to put at the disposal of the directing body of this organization the necessary minimum of armed forces required to avert aggression, and to oblige this organization to employ these armed forces without delay if it becomes necessary, to avert or stop aggression, and to punish those guilty of aggression.[…] Can we expect the actions of this world organization to be sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the great Powers which have borne the brunt of the war against Hitler Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and accord. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated”. 
As was proven later, the above statements underestimated the aggressive character of imperialism. Of course, the fact that those statements were made in a historical period marked by the acute competition for the advantage to produce nuclear weapons played a significant part. As we know today, the USA led the field. In 1945, it used nuclear weapons against Japan, while its real goal was to terrorize the USSR that acquired this weapon only in 1949, creating the so-called “nuclear balance” which for decades had a deterrent effect on a new imperialist offensive against it.
By means of war or conventional weapons, it was soon proved that the character of the UN was not different from that of the LON. Before 1955, the imperialist powers used the UN in their plans, e.g. against the People’s Republic of China, in the war of Korea (1950), while they sought to abolish the right of veto of the USSR in the UN Security Council, and they rejected the proposals of the USSR on disarmament.
They leader of the USSR condemned the imperialist interventions in China and Korea and made the following analysis on the UN resolutions: “I regard it (the utilization of the UN against the Peoples Republic of China and Korea) as a scandalous decision. Really, one must have lost what was left of conscience to maintain that the United States of America, which has stolen Chinese territory, the island of Taiwan, and fallen upon China’s borders in Korea, is the defensive side; and on the other hand, to declare that the Chinese People’s Republic which has defended its borders and striven to take back the island of Taiwan, stolen by the Americans, is the aggressor.
The United Nations Organization, which was created as a bulwark for keeping peace, has been transformed into an instrument of war, a means to unleash a new world war. The aggressive core of the United Nations Organization have formed the aggressive North Atlantic pact from ten member states (the USA, England, France, Belgium, Canada, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Iceland) and twenty Latin-American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela.) And the representatives of these countries now make the decisions in the United Nations Organization about war and peace. It was these that have, in the United Nations Organizations, carried through the scandalous decision about the aggression of the Chinese People’s Republic. [...]
Thus, the United Nations Organization, from being a world organization of nations with equal rights, has changed into an instrument of a war of aggression. In reality, the United Nations Organization is now not so much a world organization, as an organization for the Americans and treats American aggression as acceptable. Not only are the United States of America and Canada striving to unleash a new war, but on this path you also find the twenty Latin-American countries; their landowners and merchants long for a new war somewhere in Europe or Asia, to sell their goods to the countries at inflated prices, and to make millions out of this bloody business. The fact is not a secret to anybody that the representatives of the twenty Latin American countries represent the strongest supporters and the willing army of the United States of America in the United Nations Organization. The United Nations Organization treads, in this manner, the inglorious path of the League of Nations. Thereby they bury their moral authority and condemn themselves to fall into decay”. 
In the same interview in “Pravda”, Stalin defined the nature of the struggle for peace as follows: “Where will this entire struggle between the aggressive and the peace-loving powers end? Peace will be kept and strengthened if the people take the holding of peace into their own hands and defend it to the utmost. War could be unavoidable if the arsonists of war succeed in trapping the masses with their lies, in deceiving them and in drawing them into a new war.
Now, therefore, a broad campaign for the holding of peace, as a way of exposing the criminal machinations of the arsonists of war, is of prime importance.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it will continue to carry through the politics of preventing war and keeping peace”. 
In short, we could say that the socialist construction in the USSR, despite the enormous destruction (human and material) caused by the Second World War, and its strengthening combined with the presence of other socialist countries were powerful factors that influenced the correlation of forces and also had an impact on the UN.
The USSR, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, exercised its veto right 120 times (79 times in the first ten years).
Thanks to the presence of the USSR and the other socialist countries (since 1955) as well as of other countries from Asia and Africa, the UN adopted a series of significant, positive resolutions against imperialist plans and powers, e.g. the condemnation of US action against Cuba (1960–1962), in the Middle East, and the Cyprus issue.
A series of conventions and treaties, resolutions on disarmament, on the ban of nuclear testing, on bacteriological war and space were adopted as a result of the pressure exerted by the USSR.
Nevertheless, the nature of imperialism did not change! International Law and its resolutions have been a result of the global correlation of forces that forced the imperialists to manoeuvre and make concessions although they never gave up their plans as the imperialist interventions, the coups and the arms race have shown. There were even cases when the imperialist powers used, despite the opposition of the USSR, the UN troops for their reactionary plans, as in the case of Congo (1960–1963). However, the overthrow of socialism resulted in the deterioration of the global correlation of power. This loss of the USSR and the socialist system is reflected in the UN and the international relations in general.