This was a profound speech. There was a lot to it. Declaring the death of the liberal international order with less than shining obit being one example. That was a very powerful statement. More than that though, he has been gradually laying down pieces of a framework for working back towards a world order we might want to see. Can we do it without the US smashing it all up first? Very uncertain. Still, can't fault Carney for taking the position he has. He's supposed to be a leader, it's a time when leadership is desperately needed, and he is stepping up as a leader.
They broke Venezuela with sanctions for 20 years before what they did to them this month. They've broken Iran's economy with sanctions similarly, including the snapback sanctions recently reimposed by allies. The currency crisis that initiated the recent Iranian turmoil was precipitated by outside manipulation. Their main strategy is to break and divide targets from the outside before taking any action that risks their own assets. The trade war against Canada is part of the same kind of technique, as is support for Alberta secessionist movements, and for Maple MAGA more broadly. These are applications of the technique, but they have the capacity to escalate much more dramatically in extending that approach.
Also, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying about Americans opposing fascism. I'm not saying Canadians should align with the Democrats. They are useless. The people who Canadians should support are the Americans actually going to the streets, organizing, and hopefully building towards real domestic resistance at scale, whether that be armed or peaceful. If they are squashed domestically, the US will be able to direct more resources outwardly. Also, should it come to direct conflict with the US, we should treat those people resisting fascism domestically down south as assets to support. The US already is doing this to us by treating Canadians sympathetic to MAGA and fascism as assets in undermining Canada.
I appreciate the "we've done it before, we'll do it again, so FAFO" spirit, and I'm not disagreeing about being ready for physical invasion, but it's not 1812 anymore. We don't have the British Empire at our back, and war has evolved dramatically since then. Preparing in 2026 means preparing for something much more comprehensive and much more challenging than 1812.
By all means, get firearms licenses and training, but be ready for something much more insidious than troops coming across the border if the US takes things this direction. We are already infiltrated by political and militia movements that are aligned with the US, and our own security and intelligence forces are deeply integrated. Worse than that even, we are on a giant island with them, any allies that might come to our aid are an ocean away, and the US has the capacity to easily blockade our major ports and cut us off from trade with the world. The US is positioned to break our society down economically and socially, utterly empoverishing and dividing our populace before making any move at actually seizing control of government and calling us a state. This is what they do to destroy countries. They do it with sanctions elsewhere, but they have even more powerful tools than those to use against us because of our shared geography and integration. So, yes, get firearms training and arm yourself, but be ready for internal chaos and to push back against domestic movements to align and capitulate, not just little green men coming across a border. Also, think about how to support & collaborate with Americans who are trying to fight fascism domestically. They are the front line, and our best hope may be their civil war if the US goes this direction.
The problem we should be most worried about here is X. It is the gateway and channel for cultivating divisive movements. X is not only used on the daily by many Canadian citizens but by our political figures and institutions, all while being owned by a white supremacist who uses it to push the worst of the worst and to shape the worldviews of users in ways that are legitimately very threatening to both Greenland and Canada.
I hope there is a long game being played, but it's not clear to me just yet how he sees Canada-US relations in that long time horizon. Where Carney has been consistent is in his characterization of the old world order being done, a new world order being shaped, and the shape of that new world order not being defined by universal multilateralism but by smaller networks of overlapping and perhaps non-permanent interests, whether that be referred to as variable geometries or patchwork alliances.
The Carney government had been good on diversifying economically, but not so much on security. Also, Carney backed Trump's plan for Gaza, and essentially backed the actions taken in Venezuela. Carney wrote an article in the economist a couple of months ago that basically said goodbye to universal multilateral institutions, which are the foundation of having international law. I don't know what to expect from Carney on continental security vs NATO violations, but he has certainly not drawn a clear line in the sand against US imperialism.
This is a promising start to a reset in the relationship. Let's see where it goes from here and how it develops. This comes just a couple of months after the US's NSS that claimed dominance over trade in the Americas, so it's an important move by Carney. The guard rails Carney discussed seem to be around critical areas that the US would take issue with, like minerals, energy, and AI, but better diplomatic relations between Canada and China along with Canadians getting more exposure to high-quality Chinese vehicles should open more space for the relationship to evolve positively.
What a needless own goal. I'm not anti-AI. If anything, I worry about people of certain classes or political groups outright rejecting keeping up with it based on ideological reasons and politicians who lean into feeding people's fears to gain votes by pushing rejection of it rather than helping people and systems adapt, but an AMA is not the time or the place to use it. The whole point is to give people access to something genuine that isn't canned. Very poor judgment. Rob did not understand the assignment.
"I wonder how much of this social media push is astroturfing" posted in response to a propaganda account lol. Not poking fun at you at all, but just look at the posting history of the account you're responding to.
Polymarket odds at time A can be very different from at time B. Prediction markets, like other markets, are not efficient. If they were, nobody would make any money in them.
We've got a third of Canadians believing the US may invade Canada and most Canadians view the US as the single greatest threat to our sovereignty, and yet we somehow keep making moves that integrate us more with US security strategy. We are doing nothing to cut them out or to harden our southern border, but we get legislation that aligns us more with the NSA on information security, we get military spending focused on their demands for Arctic security thousands of kilometers away from where all our population is clustered right next to the border with them, we get cybersecurity integration with Microsoft in Ottawa and commitment to use of their AI in our public services...
Despite the rhetoric of independence and the actual economic diversification, it looks like we're still on the same team when it comes to security. There is a huge gap between public perceptions of threat and what's actually being done at a policy level.
Vina Nadjibulla has been doing a lot of media appearances recently and is not some impartial security expert or academic either. Her spouse is Michael Kovrig. The fact that she is in the media so often recently with no acknowledgment of the fact that her husband is a central figure in the historic breakdown of Canada-China relations should raise eyebrows. This article even addresses the arrest of Michael Kovrig while completely neglecting to mention that the person whose opinion they're presenting as arms length expert analysis is actually married to him.
There are many academic experts around in Canada with deep insights on China and without backgrounds of such a deeply questionable nature wrt bias, but Vina keeps getting big platforms that others do not. Is she hyper-motivated to seek the opportunities out? If so, why? Are the outlets specifically seeking her out for a reason? If so, what is it? And, why is her deeply personal connection to the breakdown of Canada-China relations almost never mentioned?
We had the chance to overcome the coordination problem early on when Trump launched his new tariff regime. That was the chance for countries to stand together in a united way to push back. Didn't happen, and that has already shown Trump what opposition he's up against. If our governments couldn't stand together against the US economically, what are the chances they will be ready to do so militarily?
Lol, you're good for a laugh, Scotty. I'll give you credit for that.
Anyone can go look up the smile curve, flying geese, bebas dan aktif, ASPI & Lowy funding, Colonel Powell and the transparency initiative or that senate hearing, and can look up actual data.
I don't need to curate people's sources for them.
As for bold claims, you actually posted this:
Which non-Chinese company ever had long-term success in the Chinese domestic market?
And you expect anyone to take you even a tiny bit seriously?!? I'm still laughing at that.
So, if you "have no interest" in the discussion, by all means go ahead and run of with your tail between your legs again, and maybe consider stopping posting bs about topics you're ignorant of just to push an ideology.
Not surprised, but still disappointing. Had my hopes up for a second, against my better judgment. X is top of the list for tech to block and yet our government ministers and PM at still on there using it.
Good. One less thing to worry about. Not sure anyone in Canada will feel bad about it.