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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
117 comments
they either lean on NATO or Commonwealth allies, or build them internally.
there is no other way to resist US military power
economically Canada does not have enough good ports and transportation options to get the same volume of good to China or EU as it does into the US.
>Nuclear weaponry is offensive in nature
It's also a deterrence.
> 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.)
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.
It's on us to push to develop this more.
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.
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.
Where does America go from here?
- Carney's Davos speech (Jan 2026) evoked "workers of the world unite" [1];
- Carney's pre-election speech (Mar 2025) claimed the old relationship with the US is over [2]; and
- Trump's handling of Canada relations, particularly with the tariff frenzy, basically ended up giving the election to Carney [3].
This administration is busy destroying the relationships and institutions that the US created for America's interests like NATO.
[1]: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-a...
[2]: https://speakola.com/political/mark-carney-response-to-trump...
[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypz7yx73wo
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.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFHgR4vAurg
[1]: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-a...
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.