The biggest problem is that Canada shares a long land border with the US but is isolated by oceans from other countries. Having alternatives is good, but conflict with the US is dangerous. The US could do a huge amount of damage just by blocking trade with Canada. They're also capable of blocking trade between Canada and other countries, and occupying Canada. It is probably unwise to escalate conflict when the other side can escalate a lot more.
Nuclear weaponry is offensive in nature, and Canada does not need them. The population broadly does not want them. Most people may acknowledge (after slight thought) that if we were to obtain/produce them, certainly other countries won't be happy and if we were to 'use' them, well I'm sure the fallout will end up on our own soil after it's swatted out of the sky. So, let's build AA defence/defense networks of our own, instead.
> there is no other way to resist US military power
I'm struggling with how to articulate the idea that seems to be in so many Canadian heads, regardless of their military experience.
Assume the worst case, that the US invades Canada and that no allies come to assist, for whatever reason.
The best the US can hope for is a pyrrhic victory: while it may well be true that the Canadian military and population cannot hope to resist the US military, anyone thinking there would be anything other than a pyrrhic victory does not understand how, uh, what words to choose, hmm, bloody mindedly petty and vindictive Canadians can be.
There is that old trope about mistaking "polite" for "nice". Canadians are mostly are the former, and are mostly the latter most of the time, and can even be the former while not at all being the latter. But remember too the trope as to why so many of the specific rules of the Geneva Convention, etm., exist.
Canadians don't pick fights, generally, but see fights to the end, always, and almost always no matter what. And it's not a red mist thing: That comes and clears. What is left is cold. Sober. Focused. Are you still here? Are you not retreating fast enough? Do I still have functional limbs/weapons/comms? Carrying on....
We don't stop until it is safe to stop, and by safe I mean we can stand down and not have to stand to again, or until there is no we left.
Now, more tropes:
Longest sniper kill: Canada has the top spot and at least two more of the top five. Those are all recent.
Only force to meet its D-Day objectives: Canada, with fighting as fierce on Juno as elsewhere.
Only western soldier to fire on a Soviet: A Canadian with the group sent to protect Denmark from Soviets who were rolling fast and hard over northern Germany. The RoE were sort of vague on that point, but they were explicit about not withdrawing, about not giving up an inch. Words didn't work, triggers were pulled, a standoff occurred until sufficient forces arrived to convince the Soviets to withdraw to their agreed lines.
Before becoming PM, Lester B. Pearson won the Noble Peace Prize for the idea of UN Peacekeepers, of putting Canadians in harm's way to separate combatants in hot zones. The idea was taken seriously because memories of Canadian performance in WWII and Korea were fresh in mind. "Oh, those guys? Yeah, OK, ceasefire and separation sounds good."
Again, I am not in anyway suggesting that the US would not win in an invasion of Canada, if Canada stood alone. What I am suggesting is that what would be left (of the US, let alone Canada) would make the victory hollow and bitter.
(You do know that the Canadian boycotts that are so impacting tourism and distillers, among others, are not economically motivated, right? So many US talking heads cite tit-for-tat tariff nonsense, and very few miss the point entirely: Canadians mostly didn't give a damn about tariffs, but when "51st state" was mooted, even if as a joke, Canadians stopped buying US stuff. The tariffs could disappear today and many would still push for closer ties with the EU, possibly even membership, for distancing Canada from the US even more, all because we are fiercely independent, and willing to sacrifice a great deal to retain that independence. Canadians are mostly quiet about it, but never mistake silence for acquiescence or consent.)
I mean, for the first 100 yearsish of our existence we actively traded mostly with the "mother country" via shipping through the St Lawrence. Fur trade and then agriculture and forestry goods, etc. Our entire initial infrastructure from rail to canals was built for west -> east movement of goods.
The (over) emphasis on north south came a bit later. And certainly since the signing of the FTA it's been the most important thing.
Shipping to China from ports in Vancouver and to Europe from ports in the gulf of St Lawrence is actually quite strategically advantageous.
Interesting that this comes as millions of Americans discover they have a claim to a Canadian passport thanks to recent rule changes. If they play they hand right (and maybe actually build housing) Canada could benefit from American brain drain.
I am a Canadian and I think you are demonstrating an unreal amount of cope thinking that this will have any meaningful impact on migration trends. The NAFTA agreement (and followups) allow the free-flow of professionals between the countries. Any "brain" that wanted to flee could already do so.
Perhaps, but as someone who has gone through the "highly skilled migrant" route (not to Canada though) it definitely is _much_ higher friction than just showing up with a passport.
> "Nixon should be told," Kissinger said, "that it is probably an objective of Clifford to depose Thieu before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - William F. Buckley Jr. claimed this was said in November of 1968, after Nixon was elected but before he was inaugurated.
It would be unsurprising if US-based conservative think tanks were already doing this. Worth noting that the ones we'd be unsurprised to see do this are neither conservative nor think tanks.
I did vote for Trump. I like some, but not all, of his policies.
It should not be surprising. Trump won the popular vote and all seven swing states. Even hardcore supporters tire of some of his antics. Supporters have accomplishments they can be happy with.
10th lowest winning margin in all of US history. Far from the picture you are trying to paint that most Americans are pro-trump. Most Americans either didn’t vote or voted against trump.
Honestly, there is a class of voters for which it just ultimately comes down to one issue and one issue only and that is abortion.
Trumps fortunes in 2016 were looking pretty bad until the final debate with Clinton where he cornered her into making principled (and completely correct) pro-choice statements (and lied implying she'd support 8th month abortions and because of the way he twisted things she got on the defensive.)
That was the end for her. An entire class of "conservative" voters who were uncomfortable with Trump and willing to park their vote with the Democrats temporarily just plugged their nose and voted Trump.
And they were paid off for it, too. Anti-abortion supreme court justices put in place and new anti-abortion laws put in place all over. Despite Trump himself having been formerly "pro-choice."
If you believe that abortion is literally murder, you probably
can't vote any other way.
And since then other "culture wars" issues have been thrown into the mix around trans issues and "woke" etc.
>have never heard of anything even remotely similar
And therein lies the problem. What the parent said is something the USA has practiced in dozens of countries. For just a single example, operation cyclone had the USA arming separatist militias to fight against the Soviet afghan government. You may be familiar with one of these militia members:
>the most well-known Arab financier and militant of the group during this period was Osama bin Laden, who would later found al-Qaeda and mastermind the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Historically it is correct, and the movie Rambo III even references to it (such movies are made with approval of US military).
Stuff like this happens all the time though. You give resources to the enemy of an enemy (temp. friend) and they may end up as your enemy with the demise of your common enemy. Ideal allies you have a lot in common with (shared values) which was true regarding Europe and USA last century.
> I’d say the most prevalent attitude I see towards Canada is to wish you well.
Trump has said otherwise many times and in many ways, and is elected and widely supported. That conveys a lot, regardless of your anecdotal experience.
Just what are you "conservative" about that Trump is too? He is about: more CO2 emissions, more cheap immigrant labor, more wasteful defense spending, senseless support of Israel, more pardons of criminals, destruction of environmental protections, unprofessional murderous gangsters with guns (ICE), and less healthcare. That's what you voted for.
And lies and deception, all the time. I don't understand how a devout Christian can support such, except if I regard religion as tool and these people not religious at all. The hypocrisy level is too damn high.
Besides, he doesn't treat women with respect either, and he seems to like to visit prostitutes.
That, and a whole lot more. We are scratching surfaces here.
Trump called the Canadian prime minister a governor while threatening 100% tariffs and threatening to annex Greenland. The US government also did literally reach out to Albertan separatists.
The actions of the government you support and the supposed “consensus” you cite are opposed.
Then you're not paying attention, prominent members of the GOP have openly denied the legitimacy of Canadian sovereignty, including senior officials in the Trump administration as well as obviously Trump himself.
They have also openly wished harm on our industrial base and on our workers, talking about aggressively dismantling our steel and auto sectors.
They have also been having meetings with and providing amplification in media and social media to formerly extremely fringe "separatist" groups in Alberta.
All of this began immediately after the assumption of power by Trump in winter 2025.
Not to mention active informal (maybe?) social media activity by self-identified conservatives on forums all over the place spreading disinformation and aggression about Canada.
As a Canadian I feel like this country has some problems that contribute to the brain drain south. And I feel like Trump is definitely not our friend but the situation could have been helpful to stir us up to self reflection. But I fear that instead we will just try to recreate the former status quo by whatever means and call that a victory. But what it means is the inevitable decline of this country.
As a Canadian I am afraid that the more bad behavior the USA exhibits on the world stage, the easier it becomes to scapegoat and not look within at our own problems.
It was maybe 15ish years ago when Blackberry was at its peak. A world with such a dominant tech company in Canada today seems comically impossible
This seems like such a strange comment to make on an article about the leader of Canada advocating for exactly the sort of national reflection you’re talking about and explicitly calling for an end to that status quo you’re worried we’ll try to recreate.
So far the major move has been undermining Canada's auto industry[1] to create closer ties to China. As the saying goes: Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Good. Many Canadians view Carney as a "war-time" PM and I think that's accurate.
The Trump administration has treated Canada and Canadians appallingly. It will take many years and another President, but I hope the U.S. can repair relations. The onus is on us.
Canada honored its commitments. The U.S. started this stupid trade war.
The U.S. has 75+ years of an incredible consumer economy, ties with nations, and deep entrenchment in civilian supply chains and military logistics, so countries can’t just break away.
What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
The problem, from a U.S. perspective, is that 2 decades from now, these decisions might have cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars, but it will largely be impossible to tell because the nature of losses will be in billions of dollars of economic activity that could have been created but were never even conceived, so the alternate path will be impossible to know.
a 75 year history isn't anything to brag about on a global scale, that's a very young country. an unbroken 75 year history as a reliable partner might be something, but if your time as a reliable economic partner only lasts 75 years, that's not very reliable.
the one thing that the US still has is money. countries want to trade with countries that have money, whether they're trustworthy or untrustworthy, moral or immoral. as long as the US continues to be rich, they'll continue to have good trading relationships. we've all just got to hope that this current trend reverses before the us stops being a rich country.
> What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
> It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
I think it is important to distinguish talk intended to appease the public, that currently is very anti-US, from real policies. For example there is lot of talk about sovereignty in the EU, you can even see lot of that here, but so far no real steps were taken. Globalism cannot be reversed, not without some external factor like global cataclysm. And the public opinion on anything, in the age of Twitter et al, change as often as Trump's proclaimed policies.
Truth is, EU countries have not other potential ally that could replace US, especially among themselves. In Poland some groups dream about European army and French nuclear sharing, when first is pure fantasy, and second is even less reliable that the US one.
You can balance however much you want between US and China, but there may be time when you need to choose. As bad as current state of US is, China is an antithesis to everything EU and its democracies say they stand for.
> I think it is important to distinguish talk intended to appease the public, that currently is very anti-US, from real policies.
It's pretty clear that governments engage in such two-sided talk at their peril going forward. This is exactly how you get populism - usually of the far-right variety, with its specific blend of parochialism, jingoism and nihilism.
the reek of American exceptionalism. There is plenty of history out there you just have to realise america does not have much and there is allot outside of it.
> What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
> It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
I don't think any Western democracy can keep up such a project for that long, after the immediate political irritant has disappeared. I mean, FFS, pretty much everything "new" that's people build is dependent on China. Trump is an stupid old man, China is a bigger long-term threat to democracy and is smarter and more strategic.
What I'm saying is: is once Trump leaves office (and especially once he's dead), the process you talk about will almost certainly reverse. It may seem hard to believe in this moment, but people will move on from Trump.
You missed South America. We did not trust the US before but are forced to give the US business preference as per the so called Monroe Doctrine, now with a "Trump Corollary"
It’s gonna take more than a dem POTUS sucking up to us to fix this. MAGA will outlast Trump and the everlasting threat of another lunatic Republican president doing this crap again means this isn’t going away as easily as replacing a president.
Before Trump, there was Bush Jr. The world's view on him was also dim, but 9/11/2001 made the world cut the USA a lot of slack. It turns out he was the new normal, instead of a temporary savage spot. Trump is not the only USA leader in the back of the world's mind.
Bush II was awful in all sorts of ways; it's not crazy to say that as chaotic as Trump's first presidency was, it was nowhere near as destructive as Bush's terms. I in no way want to white-wash Bush, which I feel like some people have done in the wake of Trump.
But despite that, Bush's presidency was generally continuous with American presidencies since World War II. He still, at root, steered the ship as though he were a believer in the narrative of America as a leader of the free world, rather than as a selfish actor who needs to get one over on everyone else in order to get ahead. Regardless of the world's judgement of Bush, I don't think it sowed much doubt in many minds about their overall relationship with America, and not just because of 9/11 or because he was just one president. The US could have continued electing Bushes forever and not much would have changed.
Whereas: Trump's presidency - especially this second term - is utterly destabilizing. He's single-handedly destroyed America's soft power and place in the world.
I agree. I think it’s fair to say that while many people might agree Bush II is someone you could have a beer with compared to the current prest his foreign policy decisions lead to excess mortality in the range of half a million.
[1]: "That five per cent figure is somewhat deceptive, since just 3.5 per cent of that will go to core defence needs, while 1.5 per cent is to cover spending loosely related to national security — such as funding for maritime ports, airports and other infrastructure." - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-u...
You can only hope that Canada (and Europe) will do more than just being mad at the US. From what I hear from Canadians, Canada is in a very bad spot with high cost of living but salaries that aren't enough to afford that. Complaining about the americans isn't going to solve that. Same for Europe. Stop focusing on Trump and start standing on your own feet.
It's naive to think that huge geopolitical shifts could happen in otherwise stable democracies in a couple years, short of some cataclysmic event. So far no such event happened and everybody understands that the USA hasn't fallen, that Trump is a more or less temporary disaster. But thinking in terms of decades makes things much more unpredictable but the general direction rather clear. Before Trump, voters from many European countries, while understanding the shortcomings of EU, were welcoming pro-American policies with open arms. Starting recently (take Hungary for example) and likely for many years in the future any kind of dependency from the USA will be viewed suspiciously. European (and Canadian, though their geography is arguably a little less forgiving) voters also know that looking East is also not an option, neither South, so they will likely keep turning inwards, with the USA having less and less influence.
First off, the difference in diction between PM Mark Carney and other world leaders is startling. Clear, cogent reasoning with rhetoric meant to impart on the listener that the speaker respects them and the presentation of an actual plan instead of just concepts of one is refreshing.
Second. I've been finding it more and more difficult to communicate online with Americans or people who have succumbed to contemporary American-brained thinking. There's something corrosive about being surrounded by slurred, infantile thinking, it seems like even the most intelligent people will eventually succumb to it and regurgitate it back because they see it as the easy road and suffer no immediate consequences for doing so.
It's extremely frustrating to see this come from American oligarchs who bend the knee to a mad king with a sexual penchant for young girls. To satiate their greed people like Sam Altman and Tim Cook align themselves with the worst of American society and unctuously flatter them with gaudy bauble bribes and obsequious speeches. Sure it serves their immediate purposes but what are the long term consequences of this? Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
It seems like America is rudderless now, a living ghost shambling into an uncertain but terminal future. Other countries see that now and there's a strong 'if it bleeds we can kill it' vibe after watching America deplete years of missile stocks against Iran only to watch China begin to resupply Iranian stockpiles to provide the Americans with another opportunity to deplete years more.
> Sure it serves their immediate purposes but what are the long term consequences of this? Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
It makes me wonder, at what amount of wealth does it stop being "F%ck you" money and start being a ranking on the scoreboard?
> Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
you should look into how wealthy elites live. this is not "their" society, they are completley detached from it. their homes are surrounded by tall walls [0]. they have their own neighbourhoods. they buy themselves islands to party on. they fly there using private jets. they talk with each other in private signal groups or at off-the-record clubs. they build themselves bunkers. they invest in chartered cities. that is the psychology of wealthy people. they are not and do not wish to be a part of society
in fact, they don't want society to exist as society at all. because while they unite and collude, they simultaneously discourage everyone else from doing the same. in his davos speech [1], carney himself quoted the phrase "workers of the world unite" in order to discredit it. he gave it as an example of dishonesty, something worthy of scorn. due to its use by communist regimes. historically his point is valid. but the subtext is clear
"Canada called me a couple of weeks ago. They want to be part of it. To which I said, well, why don't you just join our country? Become 51, become the 51st state and you get it for free,"
Numerous other examples if you are honestly asking for evidence.
> Carney's Davos speech (Jan 2026) evoked "workers of the world unite"
No it didn't. He gave it as an example of something people behind the Iron Curtain didn’t believe but parroted "to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along".
The man is a banker. The implication that Carney - arguably the most neoliberal leader Canada has ever seen - is a communist is absurd.
yeah exactly. it's bizarre to highlight that quote from his davos speech completley out of context. he inteded it as a way to completely discredit communism. and to ridicule the idea of unionization. he then spent 10 minutes passionately making the case for continuing the neoliberal capitalist agenda
That is...also a misrepresentation of what Carney was saying.
He was referencing the words of a writer from Czechia, a country where communism discredited itself, who discussed how people pretended not to notice the gap between the government's rhetoric and its actions, and compared it to how countries politely have pretended to ignore the gap between the aspirations of the "rules-based international order" and how it played out in practice.
Of course, he could have used as an example a different dissident who said something similar from a different country who operated under a different totalitarian regime. Or skipped the analogy to political repression altogether. You could say that reflects Carney's particular biases, I guess, but I wouldn't go further than that. At no point does he ridicule or even mention unionization.
i agree that discrediting communism wasn't really the topic of his talk. but the phrase is a call to unionization in itself. especially when shopkeepers use it, like in the story carney referenced. capable politicians don't leave clear subtext like that to chance. which is why it's bizarre to highlight it without context, like in OP's message. on its own it doesn't convey the scorn with which carney framed it
Canada and America are neighbours. It is far cheaper for Canada to ship things south into a giant market than to ship east and west into our own, smaller markets. Trading with anyone else in the world entails much larger shipping expenses. This is structural, and applies to something exceeding 90% of our trade.
Carney is wrong, but he's not a fool. I read this as high-level virtue signalling to two audiences: Canadian left-patriots, who love to hate America while (unknowingly) free-riding on the benefits of the relationship. He has a vulnerable majority and is smart enough to plan ahead for the next election. Over half of Boomers support the Liberals, so he is playing to their emotions. He doesn't need to play to their pocket books, because they're mostly as rich as they're going to get, so he can trade economics for votes.
Second: he's signalling to China, and other international trade partners, that we are open for business. Carney has been struggling with pro-China (former) members of his caucus also being pro-slave-labour[0]. This is a message that, as he indicated in his Davos speech[1], he is willing to be flexible on Human Rights if the price is right.
America hasn't changed. When Trump is gone the American export market will remain.
Carney is wrong, but he's not a fool. He's amoral.
CAN rail to port to transPac/Asia is cheaper than rail/truck to US post tariff (most commodities now). Also it's ~75% of CAN exports goes to US, and it was only structurally cheaper under pre-Trump trade arrangements, now it's structurally more expensive.
Carney's just pointing out the obvious, structurally building economy around US integration/dependency has backfired and will continue to even after Trump for the simple reason VZ oil now challenges WCS, and (preferential/discounted crude to US) basically accounts for all CAN-US surplus. CAN would be in massive goods and services deficit otherwise - like 80B deficit. Canada was always massive real political economy loser in US-CAN trade, would have more favorite trade ledger with 100% domestic goods/service (i.e. 0 goods/service trade with US) and 100% global energy.
Reality for CAN is export to US is half commodity, half goods. Of the goods, US has strangled/killed CAN tech, aviation and soon auto and general braindrain. The commodity half, we've send them discount energy because we hedged on integration even though we could have structurally build infra to ship finished products to global markets (at higher margins). Like goods that CAN use to be competitive in, US lobbying / behind scenes shenanigans killed a lot commodity diversification efforts. Meanwhile, again, we have massive non energy goods and service deficit vs US. Goods+Service balance still in CAN favour ONLY because of energy pricing, which again US is getting discount on for CAN being retarded with pipleines not developing refined petro for decades. CAN now getting double fucked for acceding to US gas station arrangement, post VZ, that arrangement is expendable and again, VZ oil not going away after Trump.
>he is willing to be flexible on Human Rights if the price is right
Or Canada no longer needs toe line with US propaganda on human rights, that was always predicated on happy vassal privileges. Canada was always (A)moral, as in morals was always subject to highest bidder. US no longer wants to pay for LIOtard morals so no choice but look elsewhere and adopt next most profitable morals.
> CAN rail to port to transPac/Asia is cheaper than rail/truck to US post tariff (most commodities now). Also it's ~75% of CAN exports goes to US, and it was only structurally cheaper under pre-Trump trade arrangements, now it's structurally more expensive.
The Port of Vancouver’s sulphur export capacity is prebooked for several years. Even with the sulphur boom caused by the Hormuz blockage we are unable to ship it out, but we can rail it out (sorta — cars are booked up too). Many such cases.
Shipping logistics are cheaper _when they work_, and we just went through a shipping demand destruction cycle in 2020 _and_ shipping insurance rates are going up because of naval conflict.
> half commodities half goods
Strong agree. We need secondary processing. The decades-long Liberal push for a postindustrial economy has completely failed.
* focus locally; getting invoked with local politics by supporting local candidates with your time and effort - the state department runs programs to talk to city and state officials concerning foreign policy matters and city’s and local governments can create pressure on federal representatives from those states.
* vote with your wallet; boycotts and divestments are tools ordinary people have to effect conglomerates. Ensure your retirement money is not invested with companies engaging with the political ideas you do not agree with
* protest; attending in person events shows leaders numbers and images that are harder to ignore than their consultants’ polling data.
I've done all of those and while I think they are important i believe it's most important to let politicians know, otherwise they rely too much on money.
Pointing that whatever people think they are doing is not working does not mean we have to propose a solution. I'd suggest revolution, but that won't ever happen in the US.
Trump had 1 term already. Biden did attack Canada multiple times. But we have 200 years of being friends with the USA. They were specific attacks and that doesnt end our relationship.
Chretien: “We have no better friend than the United States.”
Martin: “Our relationship with the United States is our most important.”
Trudeau: “There is no closer friend, partner, and ally than the United States.”
The only thing to change was a new Prime Minister. Who has attacked the USA as fascist; a feeling Liberals in Canada very much agree with. He and his wife talk about a new world order. Why is he pushing anti-USA so hard?
Biden, republicans and the democrats pulled him in front of congress to answer questions about potential antitrust/collusion he was committing. JPmorgan and BOA pulled out alleging collusion. Vanguard and many others exitted shortly afterwards. This collusion system fell apart.
However, when Carney became liberal leader and prime minister. The investigations were paused and Trump endorsed Carney many times. While Carney is also unable to get a deal with the USA.
Carney was colluding in the name of climate change, but as PM he has temporarily gotten rid of the carbon tax, and lowered federal excise. Imagine being pro-climate change and also being the guy who is dismantling his own party's efforts. Or wait was it all fraudulent collusion?
In reality, Carney ran on the platform of getting a deal with Trump but seems to be intentionally sabotaging this process. Which will cost Canada millions of jobs.
