The UN Security Council is anachronistic, a remnant of the world after WWII. Germany with the world’s fourth largest economy should be on it permanently. So should Japan. Why should Russia have a veto and a permanent seat? There should be an EU seat instead of France.
Agreed. The ‘Kraut’ sentiment on this thread notwithstanding.
Because they build nice cars, electronics, sausages and beer. They are nice people in many ways.
And they are the very worst the planet has to offer politically. Also they don’t contribute fighting forces to UN actions. Where they do, its a teeny highly restricted force that doesn’t do real combat. That’s why Germany should never be on the security council.
>>Why should Russia have a veto and a permanent seat?
You are perhaps unaware of their still rather significant nuclear arsenal?
The winners write the rules.
We have to wait until all of the WWII generations are gone before that can even be discussed.
Maybe. But Germany isn’t in any position to be providing military guarantees beyond European borders. Their army doesn’t even have an armored division any longer, and yet they keep pushing the EU boundaries eastward (with little to back it up).
Sounds like a presumption that the UN is any good. An entity whose charter was patterned after the 1936 USSR constitution cannot be any good.