I have been asked by some retired officers if it is fair to expect a senior military leader to stand up to or refuse to accept an immoral, unethical or illegal order from the president or the secretary of defense — particularly when a senior leader gets supposedly independent guidance from a government lawyer to accept the order.

But fairness is irrelevant. It also isn’t fair to send some people into combat and not others, yet the responsibility comes with the job, and no one is forced to accept these positions.

As far as I can see, the only objection anyone could honestly formulate is: but I don’t want to. And that will be judged for exactly what it’s worth. Mr Kendall’s concluding lines say it all:

No pretense of normality, no artificial distinction between policy and military matters, and no lawyer’s justification can relieve our senior military leaders from their oath, the burdens of their conscience, or of the judgment of the men and women they lead, the American people and history. From all of these, there is no place to hide.

That’s the whole truth of it. When you swear an oath to defend your country, it should be obvious that there is no guarantee of making it to quiet retirement. You are saying you are willing to risk it all. Risking your career is much less than that. It is the least you should be willing to do to honour your oath.

Share

Rising yields may be about to kick the AI hyperscalers, the main market driver on Wall Street, right in the teeth. America’s strategic oil reserves are depleting rapidly, and the straits of Hormuz still belong to Khamenei. Iran’s leaders, far from being cowed, delight in trolling the President with videos that portray him as a depraved and buffoonish moron. Meanwhile, all of Trump’s allies are consolidating into positions of open hostility to America.

Reality is rapidly closing in on Trump. He is at a crossroads, one that points in two directions: humiliating retreat on all fronts, or radical escalation, domestically and internationally. Given who we are dealing with, which course seems most likely?

Share

In line with that view, he offers the following on Canada’s rapprochement with China:

…its government’s “new strategic partnership” with China is immoral, unwise and unsound — unless Mark Carney, the prime minister, really thinks that Trump’s idiotic outbursts are a graver long-term threat to Canada and the free world writ large than the patient designs of the People’s Republic.

I mean, where to even begin? Does he really think Canada is escaping dependency on an unstable Washington, only to offer itself up body and soul to the CCP? We tried siding with Washington, honouring extradition requests at great cost, imposing 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs, only for Washington to kick us in the teeth.

The question is not whether we think Beijing is our “friend”, only whether we can deal with them transactionally as rational actors, while covering our asses. Washington, meanwhile, has clearly demonstrated, in word and deed, that they mean us only harm. We are not jumping aboard either ship, we are triangulating our own interests, since DC doesn’t think our interests matter.

An early MAGA rally, Madison Square Garden, 1939

Reducing Trump’s foreign policy to “idiotic outbursts” willfully ignores the fact that Washington is ideologically aligned with the world’s worst regimes. And it seems a safe bet, at this point, that that alignment may soon be formalized. And then we can really revisit how close we are to WWIII.

Share

“Trump’s hubris has made the country an international pariah.”

But of course, her article will reach a couple of million people at best, and those readers will be among the few who are already well informed. Something like thirty percent of American adults are functionally illiterate. Even among the literate, utter ignorance about the world beyond their borders is often the norm. Most get their information from cable news, which has adjusted its content to the lowest common denominator. As have the politicians. Any traveler from Europe, Canada, or elsewhere, knows the feeling of watching American news, and wondering if they are tuned in to the children’s channel.

So while it is encouraging to see articles like Parton’s, they are very small lights in a vast darkness. We can only hope that, against all odds, the message gains traction among the masses. But it might be a long wait.

Share

In the Globe article a former deputy commander of NORAD is quoted saying the following:

“Certainly, in the case of the F-35, there is no better option from a Canada or from a NORAD perspective than the F-35,” he said, adding that it’s in Canada’s best interest to not let a rupture in trade affect its ability to defend North America alongside the U.S

Completely absent from these musings is the idea that America may no longer be interested in “defending” North America alongside Canada. The US is the country that has changed, not Canada. Our job is to figure out how to respond. Do we just go with the flow, get ourselves fitted for jackboots? Or do we change course?

He also dismisses out of hand the many sound arguments in favour of the Gripen. By many metrics, it is wholly superior as an arctic patrol aircraft. It offers real economic partnership, with serious industrial benefits, at a time when America is trying to nuke our economy. And it doesn’t come with a leash to a country that wants to control us.

Here’s another former senior official at the Dept of National Defence:

If the U.S. judges Canada’s politically motivated procurement decisions as putting its own security at risk, the economic consequences for Canada may only worsen.

Well, no shit. Again, she leaves unsaid the fact that such “security concerns” would be a farcical excuse for any action they have already decided to take. Also left unsaid: the only reason we are forced to look at other options is that the US is attacking us.

The fact is, most of our senior leadership have spent their entire careers within a joint framework with the US. They have had good relationships with American officers and officials. They believed in the mission. Many, no doubt, have lucrative futures lined up as lobbyists for American firms. And now, it seems, they just can’t let go. But they damn well better, because the relationship is well and truly fucked. If they can’t accept that America is no longer a reliable ally, they need to step aside and make way for new people who can.

Share

Blue state governors have the authority to arrest and charge ICE officers, for kidnap and torture, but choose not to. They could cancel leases. They could strictly forbid all cooperation from state authorities. They could issue arrest warrants for senior ICE officials. They choose not to.

For Canadians, it is worth remembering that this is the country some want us to “work it out” with. Why on earth would anyone want to? Seriously.

Share

In 1992, over the fierce objections of half the country, the Conservative party married our economic fate to America’s. Throughout the course of the arrangement, the advantages to Canada have seemed modest at best. But we were stuck with it, so we made the best of it. Some industries profited handsomely, others went under. For most citizens, the benefits of the arrangement seemed well hidden. It seemed like we had settled for the role of second-tier supplier to an ever more prosperous Wall Street.

As of Saturday morning, the marriage is effectively over. The shocking headline to the front page article in the New York Times was quite unambigous:

‘Attacked’ by Trump on Trade, Canada Is ‘at War’ With U.S., Carney Says

Since DC first turned into Nero’s Rome, we have made every effort to be reasonable, to work with the demented emperor we were married to. For the sake of the children, as it were. But the Trump regime doesn’t want allies, it wants vassals, as it has stated explicitly in its recent National Security Strategy.

The writing has been on the wall since Trump was first elected. But history will likely remember the end of the talks, just before midnight on Friday, as the moment divorce became inevitable. America, for the foreseeable future, is engaged on a path of belligerent, theocratic, and oligarchic nationalism. To be sure, there are forces within the US that oppose this course, but they have so far been woefully ineffective. The nationalists, meanwhile, will never be stronger than they are right now. They know they have crossed the Rubicon, and for them it is now or never. So for the next few years, at least, the country will be in the grips chaos or consolidation. Either way, it will have ceased to be a trustworthy ally, and become a destabilizing force at best, or an active menace at worst.

From Canada’s perspective, the near term will be the period of maximum danger. We are a few years away from credible military deterrence, and our economic dependencies give a hostile Washington multiple points of leverage. If we can avoid disaster, our situation will improve, in inverse proportion to the situation in the US.

Because there is chum in the water. The bond markets are beginning to signal that the Treasury is running out of rope. Trade networks are rewiring to bypass the US. The Renminbi and the Euro are making moves on the dollar, and the era of “exorbitant privilege” may be ending. Internally, the possibility of civil disturbances on a large scale cannot be ruled out. Scenarios involving stagflation, a debt crisis, and large-scale unemployment are no longer dismissed out of hand. To the rest of the world, America is looking like a house of cards. Albeit one with nukes.

And that is precisely what will make them so dangerous. State-controlled media will find no end of enemies to hold responsible, including the “traitors” in Canada. Hoekstra recently told a Canadian interviewer that America will achieve energy dominance. Well, who do we in Canada imagine might be part of that little plan? Everything we’ve seen from this regime, every escalation, every burned bridge, points in only one direction: escalation. Because the alternative is beyond MAGA governance. It would involve accepting that America has deep, structural problems, and that they will need to apply rigor, hard work, and seriousness to the task of addressing them. I mean, come on. Focusing on the northern enemy is so much more macho.

In 1938. Trotsky boldly predicted that Hitler and Stalin would soon enter into a pact. It was widely dismissed as a preposterous notion, coming from a has-been. And that reaction was understandable. For several years, each had been calling the other the Antichrist. It just seemed unthinkable that they could join forces. Then they decided to share Poland.

As America runs out of options, and as China goes from strength to strength, I can’t help but wonder if we are not about to have our own Molotov-Ribbentrop moment. And this time, it wouldn’t be coming out of the blue. Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America are at a similar crossroads. They are perfectly aligned ideologically. They feel constrained by the international community. They are losing ground economically. And they have a huge army.

It seems like only a matter of time before both of them say: let’s ditch our so-called friends, and work together. They both hate and resent Europe. They both covet Canadian resources. Together, they might feel like they could stand up to China. I can only hope Western intelligence agencies are paying close attention, and preparing actively for this contingency.

For the next few years, Canada will have to walk a fine line. Trying not to provoke an unhinged neighbour, while quietly preparing for the worst. At this point, it would be unwise to rule out any scenario in the coming years. Constant destabilization efforts. A move on our oil fields. Military occupation of “disputed” northern territory. Given the sheer insanity that is now the new normal, literally nothing seems off the table. Our only warning, before things get really hot, would likely be a drumbeat of increasingly unhinged propaganda about Canadian “provocations”.

Before that situation gathers steam, I would like to see joint bases involving European, UK, and even Australian forces, scattered over Canadian territory. The Greenland gambit. Make Trump understand he would be attacking more than one country. Of course, the rationalization, at first, would involve joint defense of NATO’s northern flank against Russian and Chinese incursions. But it would give even a cretin like Trump something to think about.

Over time, the goal will be to achieve a new equilibrium. A diversified economy. A robust defence posture, such as would make any incursion very costly. And with our untrustworthy, often hostile neighbour: pragmatic transactionalism. Deals considered on their individual merits, with enforceable security guarantees. In other words, “in God we trust, all others pay cash”. On the way to this new state of affairs, we will have to pursue a process of disentangling our interests. Procurement, intelligence sharing, everything will have to be wound down. Not with a dramatic announcement. Just by letting it all wither on the vine, until all that is left is an empty shell.

It is sad that it had to come to this. But it wasn’t our choice. There was a world where America graciously accepted a new reality of shared power, and shared prosperity, with Canada and the world at large. Had they done so, they would have held a strong and welcome voice in the concert of nations. Instead, they have opted for coercion of allies, and a division of spoils with other predators.

When the choice before us was submission to MAGA dominion, or hardship on the way to independence, Canadians have spoken with one voice. MAGA can stuff it. Come what may.

Share

In this case, the article focuses on the strides being made in securing our Arctic sovereignty, in the face of growing threats:

This convergence of military and economic pressures means that Canada can no longer afford to treat Arctic defence as a far-off concern. Thankfully, the Carney government is responding appropriately: by boosting defence spending, expediting procurement and increasing training operations and recruitment. Its most important job, however, is fortifying our European alliances.

It is that last part of the agenda that is particularly noteworthy:

At last month’s NATO Summit in Turkey, the prime minister announced Canada’s plan to take on a leadership role in the Arctic by becoming one of three framework nations for NATO’s northern defence, alongside Denmark and Latvia. Framework nations define the overall parameters of NATO activities in a region and can be called upon to provide command-and-control leadership. In this role, Canada will assume greater responsibility for planning and conducting operations, including providing senior commanders, logistical support and headquarters capacity. These operations will span the strategically important arc between northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom.

This went largely unnoticed, but it strikes me as singularly important. The principle threats to our Arctic sovereignty are Russia, America, and China. This new framework involves three nations sharing overall leadership roles in NATO’s northern defence: Canada, Denmark, and Latvia.

The framework immediately consolidates Canada’s security concerns within those of like-minded allies. In turn, the very fact of the alliance improves our security in the short term, which was our period of greatest vulnerability. By formalizing our responsibilities towards allies, we commit ourselves to avoiding past patterns of backsliding on defence. Failing to meet our targets is no longer an option. Again, quoting the author:

This new framework will formalize Canada’s responsibility to defend the High North while simultaneously broadening NATO’s defensive focus beyond its traditional European frontier to include our northern borders, waters and airspace.

At the same time, Canada is proceeding, at breakneck speed, with generational investments in our armed forces. Because, while the alliance helps to buy us some time, the faster we can insure our own territorial defence, the better.

These investments are positioning us to finally be taken seriously as leaders in the Arctic region. Credible leaders need to have credible assets. These are a material necessity to actually protect the High North and fulfill our new obligations as a framework nation. But these procurements serve another critical purpose: they also strengthen our trade relationships with the European defence sector. We have formalized our commitment to NATO, but Canada must also deepen financial and industrial co-operation with Europe in order to fund that defence.

…The more Canada integrates its defence procurement and industrial strategy with Europe, the less dependent we will be on the U.S.

So, northern defence policy is yet another front where all signs point in an encouraging direction under Carney. It is worth remembering those things the next time you hear some doom-monger pointing to some dip in meaningless poll numbers. In the words of Mr. Edgar:

I’m encouraged to see Canada’s framework nation status. The cost of inaction would leave the Arctic vulnerable to pressure from outsiders while deepening our dependence on an unpredictable southern neighbour. By building credible stronger partnerships with other middle powers, Canada can protect its northern frontier and exercise greater control over its own security. This is a responsibility we can no longer neglect—or handle alone.

To that last sentence I would add- or trust the United States.

Share

Mr. Hiebert begins his article by reviewing the wretched recent history of procurement boondoggles. And it is well worth keeping in mind. Although he is less sanguine than me, I do believe Carney and his people are well aware of this history, and absolutely focused on avoiding a repeat performance. But it will be up to all the players involved to hold the government to account, and loudly denounce any backsliding.

His next fear is lack of long-term commitment on the part of politicians and the electorate. Again, here I am more hopeful than the author. I have never felt such a sea change in public opinion in my lifetime. Sustaining that communal sense of purpose, over the long haul, will indeed be challenging. It will involve frequently keeping the public informed of progress measured against long-term objectives. It will also involve a communication strategy that effectively celebrates progress, and points to real benefits in terms of security, employment, and prosperity. There is a lot to master, but I am willing to bet on the Carney team to get this right.

The next problems he alludes to are more serious, and more insidiously opaque. As Mr. Hiebert illustrates, Canada’s track record at protecting intellectual property has been a disaster. We have had whole industries stolen out from under us. Aerospace by the Americans in the AVRO Arrow era. Digital communications by the Chinese. On and on.

This has to stop, or our whole attempt at strategic autonomy will come to nothing. The solutions will involve legislators and security services, and a generalized acceptance of the new security environment by the private sector. The complexities are enormous, but we have no choice. And we will have to step on quite a few toes to get where we need to be.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in our defence industries. As the article points out, many of our nominally Canadian giants are often mere subsidiaries of US firms. which means that their Canadian products are subject to patent claims and export restrictions. And as the trade situation degrades, it seems unlikely that the Americans will “play nice”. This is a huge liability, and it will have to be addressed at some point. It is precisely why the TKMS submarine deal is so much more than a simple procurement contract. It puts billions of dollars of defence industrial capabilities completely outside of US control or interference.

We will have to insulate our IP from the Americans if we ever hope to get out from under their threats and bullying. If the Americans play hardball, we will have to “de-americanize” our industries, up to and including nationalization of defence subsidiaries if necessary. This will offend them, but we will have use every means necessary to put ourselves in a position to not care. The gloves will have to come off at some point.

The US has already invoked bogus national security grounds to carry out economic warfare against us. Surely we can find ways to invoke the same grounds to protect our defence industries. Our future security may well depend on it.

South Korea provides the clearest example of a successful transition such as the one we are attempting. 20 years ago, they imported 70% of their military hardware. Today, they are a global defence powerhouse. They must necessarily have faced many of the same obstacles outlined in this article. Studying how they overcame them so quickly and efficiently should inform our policymakers as they move ahead. The rest of us need to stay informed, and let our elected representatives know that we expect diligence, competence, and transparency moving forward. Show us the plan, and show us where we are on it. For our part, we’ll try to remember that, behind the scenes, you are dealing with sharp elbows and hidden knives.

Share

The fact that we have never felt the need before results from a few factors. For one, we have always been able to rely on a relationship of trust with our partners, and saw no need to compete with their efforts. We also had the luxury of isolation, and the sense that we had very few real enemies. And finally, we have always preferred to think of ourselves as nice guys. A luxury we can no longer afford. As the article points out, none of our allies rely on anyone else as their primary eyes and ears abroad. Neither should we.

Of course, foreign intelligence operations are fraught with peril. There can be real diplomatic and legal consequences when things go wrong. Historically, there has been a notorious problem with accountability. There are countless documented examples of mission creep, expanding mandates, and operations getting more and more comfortable with “direct action”. All of these challenges need to be well understood. An agency culture that keeps them in check will have to be fostered . In looking at the issues involved, Macdonald poses a few hypotheticals.

As an example, officers based abroad could recruit and persuade foreign nationals to provide confidential information that could give Canada an advantage in major trade negotiations.

To me this seems like the least problematic case. I would add that such assets could be invaluable in detecting planned encroachments in our Arctic. In the world of international relations, the fact is that these kinds of espionage efforts are just assumed to be going on, even when they aren’t. The result of exposure is usually a minor diplomatic row, and maybe the expulsion of a “diplomat”. Behind closed doors, the message to the offended party is: let’s not pretend you’re not doing the same thing.

Other types of operations represent a more serious risk:

According to a report published in May by a consortium of organizations, including the Canadian Digital Media Research Network and the Global Centre for Democratic Resilience, researchers determined that the now-defunct website Albertaseparatist.com was a covert operation created and managed by Storm-1516, a Russian propagandist group. Others have expressed further concerns about possible Chinese and U.S. influence.

What if Canada wanted to engage in similar covert, if ethically fraught, operations to shape public perceptions abroad? The federal government has actively lobbied for regulations that are more favourable to Canadian mining firms in Chile, despite local opposition. A Canadian foreign intelligence agency could feasibly fund local policy institutes promoting such investment competitiveness, support media narratives by buying ads, publish op-eds or—like Storm-1516—engage in covert social-media discussions so any shift in popular opinion appears to be organic.

This would be the kind of operation best avoided entirely. Even if others are doing it. By refraining from doing the same, we would maintain some claim to the moral high ground. Especially when we expose similar efforts against us. These kinds of operations cross a line. They represent active interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. The diplomatic blowback can be severe. Much better to simply have our intelligence analysts in that country compile a comprehensive dossier, and present it to policy makers in Ottawa.

Interference campaigns are precisely the kind of initiatives that lead to the mission creep I alluded to earlier. To use the CIA as an example, there have been many operations that have harmed American interests, such as assassinations, fomenting rebellions, and running off-the-books wars. All of it amounting to a kind of shadow foreign policy barely controlled by legislators.

Creating an entirely new foreign intelligence service is already a significant challenge. Better then for Canada to focus on traditional, relatively passive intelligence gathering activities abroad. This allows the new agency to avoid dispersion, and focus on achieving excellence in core areas of competence. And it avoids the worst kinds of moral hazard and legal exposure that comes from dangerous interventions. .

In 1974, Victor Marchetti, a former assistant deputy director of the CIA, wrote a book called “The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence”. It was a detailed critique of the ways in which he felt the CIA had exceeded its mandate. He broke down the agency’s personnel into two broad categories: analysts and “cowboys”. And his prescription for moving forward, essentially, was to get rid of the cowboys, who he felt did far more harm than good. The American government never took that advice to heart. But Canada most definitely should, if it wants to keep its reputation.

In a world where great powers are going rogue, and alliances are constantly shifting, people are going to wonder who they can trust. One surefire way to destroy that trust is to behave like gangsters. At the same time, precisely because the world is so unsettled, we need information we can trust, coming from people who work for us and no one else. That means Canadian agents, monitoring communications, hacking information systems, and recruiting sources. We need to keep our own ear to the ground if we want to know what is heading our way.

I’ll leave the last word to Mr. Macdonald:

Other countries have been doing this kind of thing within our borders for years, so, as Alan Jones, a former assistant director of operations for CSIS, suggests, maybe “we should be able to level the playing field.” Perhaps the solution is to take the principled and pragmatic path that Mark Carney articulated in Davos. Our job now is to determine exactly what that looks like.

Share

The first video is an interview by Stephen Marche with the co-founder of a Canadian drone developer working closely with the CAF. I found what he had to say informative, and underlines that we seem to be on the right track:

The next one shows British airborne forces training in Alberta with their Canadian counterparts, again with a view to developing new methods and tactics, based on the lessons of Ukraine. This is a very positive development. The more trustworthy allies on the ground in Canada, the better, for obvious reasons. Both the Canadians and Brits working in Suffield will learn from each other, and our local defense industry is involved with the training:

We’re not out of the woods yet. But it sure feels like the right people are working hard to address that fact. I for one will sleep a little better tonight, knowing that’s the case.

Share

California has 40 million people, and Oklahoma has 4. Should California get 10 senators for every senator from Oklahoma? If not, why not?

Just curious.

Share

Nobody has spent more time inside Trump’s twisted little head than Maggie Haberman. She was covering him when he was just a celebrity grifter in New York, and has been following him ever since. Ezra is a worthy host, and between them they get into some interesting aspects of his personality.

As I said, you will not learn anything earth shattering. But if you feel like your whole life has turned into a dystopian satire of reality, it can be interesting to get to know what is going on at ground zero. In the same way that Roman senators must have spent every minute of every day wondering what the hell was going on in Caligula’s mind. They rightly suspected that their lives depended on knowing the answer.

For all that the interview yielded little in the way of bombshells, one detail stuck with me. By Maggie’s estimation, Trump these days spends about 70% of his time and energy focused on his grand renovation schemes. Here she elaborates:

The degree of mind share on these projects is vast.

…He sees himself as big, on a level that people really don’t understand.

…he is playing for history, capital-G great man of history..

And that, as she points out, leaves little room for the boring everyday business of governing. That stuff is for minions. Bills come and go, but a triumphal arch, well, that really says something.

As soon as the interview got into that topic, a famous picture from the history books came into my mind:

The date is February 13, 1945. Allied bombers are pulverizing every German city, day and night. Soviet Armies numbering in the millions are closing in on Berlin. And our little corporal is lovingly studying the plans for a his hometown of Linz, which he intends to turn into a cultural capital of Europe.

Because, you see, he is focused on greatness.

Share

They keep repeating that line. It really sticks in their craw. And it is meant to signal, to the MAGA morons, that Canada has sided with the enemy, and deserves whatever it gets. But let’s look at what is really going on here. Why does Canada come in, so often, and with such venom, for abuse and contempt?

It begins to make sense if you consider what the “strategy” behind the tariffs is. It’s very subtle: Trump has declared economic war on the entire planet. Friend and foe alike. Reality has finally merged with South Park. A dickless moron, with an IQ of sixty packed into 300 pounds of orange lard, has decided he is the heir to Caesar Augustus. A man with the mental stability of a sex offender, and the integrity of someone who would sell counterfeit chemotherapy drugs to children. And so everyday, the rest of us wake up wondering if we are stuck in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Of course, once you’ve decided, from the Olympian heights of your towering intellect, to conquer the entire world (which has historically always worked out great), then two dominoes HAVE to fall, if everybody else is going to come around: your greatest opponent, and your closest ally. Then everybody else can only conclude that there is nowhere safe to hide.

Out of the gate, Trump really did try to steamroll China. And they laughed and said, nice try. Still looking for critical minerals? Know anybody who needs a trillion dollars worth of treasuries? And so Trump declared victory and slithered back to Mar a Lardo. But he was seething. His brilliant strategy was in trouble. So he put China on the back burner, and doubled down on the other designated boogeyman: Canada. That can still work! First Canada, then the world!

And so, for now, the rest of the world has a little time to sit on the sidelines, and see which way the wind is blowing. But Canada has no such luxury. From Trump’s deranged point of view, they must be brought to heel, so the world finally understands that RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. Also, Melania looked lustfully at Justin Trudeau.

It is from such deep thinking that we get the modified maps on Truth Social, the reminders that we only exist because Trump permits it, and nightly character assassination, on Fox “News”, of their shitty northern neighbours . A constant stream of petty outbursts, punitive measures, and withering scorn. Surely, Trump assumes, they won’t be able to take much more of this.

But an annoying thing keeps happening. Canadians refused to read the memo about Trump’s scary genius. Polling consistently shows that they view him less favourably than explosive diarrhea, and fear him quite a bit less. And after each episode of breathless huffing and puffing by the malodorous one, Canadians quietly get on with their day. They are making new friends, changing the locks, and have long since written off any tools they may have loaned to him.

Canada has no real choice in the matter. In the long run, we are going to need a coalition of reliable partners. But first, we have to show those partners we mean business. Now, of course, it would be easier to knuckle under. But nobody up here is interested in vassalage to the Taliban’s “Christian” subsidiary. If that’s all that’s on offer, we’ll take a good scrap, thank you very much.

Which brings me to something Trump never counted on. Canadians are enjoying this. The nastier it gets, the more fun we are going to have. The world’s most universally reviled scumbag has singled us out for particular abuse. It’s a gift! Canadians have never been so united, patriotic, and filled with fervour. Quebec socialists and prairie conservatives have historically not agreed on much, but they are as united as old chums in opposing the Orange Turd. In Canada, from coast to coast, Trump and MAGA are about as appealing as rectal cancer.

Something deep inside our psyches has been awakened. 80 years of unsatisfying slumber is finally over. Trump has woken us up, and we are no longer sleepwalking away from a proud past, and towards a future as a glorified Walmart distribution hub.

Canadians are not the types to kick down, and we have zero respect for those who do. Give us a big strong bully, on the other hand, and a sly grin begins to appear on our polite faces. Someone we trusted, and considered a friend, turns out to be a backstabber? MAN are we down for that fight. And I guarantee we can take a lot more pain than a bunch of mouth-breathing, illiterate fat asses in pretty red hats. So keep coming. Each new prick move just feeds the furnace. You are building Canada’s future!

Nobody up here looks at Ukraine the way Fox News does. Nobody here wonders why they are being so obstinate, instead of surrendering to the inevitable. Far from it. We see sixty year-olds volunteering for the front, and we are filled with boundless admiration. We understand. Better to go down fighting than to submit to an asshole.

Canadians are, famously, nice people. We are polite. We are good friends to have. But we are NOT pacifists. Look into our war record if you doubt that. And think twice before you back us into a corner. There is no enemy like a friend betrayed.

Share

Clearly, this is a man whose eyes have been opened. But he is clear-sighted about how most of his compatriots have been programmed for blindness. The same Oligarchs who are screwing them, and everyone else, make sure to keep them ignorant, insular, and distracted with a steady diet of cable news propaganda and pro wrestling. Bread and games.

However, bread and games, famously, did not turn out to be a good long-term strategy. After a while, the barbarians realize that the Romans have become decadent, venal, and weak. And that is the beginning of the end.

Share

One little anecdote I found particularly revealing involves her role in the last round of talks:

As a U.S. counterpart told me during the U.S.M.C.A. negotiations in 2018, we are 10 times bigger than you, so we should get our way 10 times more than you do. The laughably flimsy, constantly changing justifications for the president’s tariffs are in fact part of the point. True power is being able to do whatever you like for whatever reason you like, or for no reason at all.

In other words, Freeland has come to understand the Trumpian worldview from direct, personal experience. And the question for Americans is, how do you think that kind of attitude, repeated hundreds of times, affects your place in the world? Sure, it can be “fun”, for a time, to kick your opponent when he’s down. And, I suppose, it can even be fun to kick your friends when they are down. But eventually, they get up. And when that day comes, don’t come around asking for favours.

Share

Fair to say, Scott is dubious. And man, I get it. He has had a front row seat to the last several decades of catastrophic procurement boondoggles, not least with the F35. To say that the government, whoever was in power, has lacked seriousness when it comes to our national defense, would be an extreme understatement. So he is quite correct that sustained scrutiny is in order, as well as a suspicious questioning of intentions and follow-through.

But, unusually for me, I am going to try and offer a glass-half-full take on the announcement. And the first thing I would say is that no Carney announcement occurs in a vacuum. This agreement is a chip on the global poker table Carney is playing at. Just by being in play, it is doing valuable work.

For example, it is only a matter of time before Trump starts demanding Canadian buy-in for the F-47, which promises to be even more of a mess than the F35 saga. If we are not yet in a position to tell him to piss off, we can dial our observer status up and down, depending on where we are in other talks. One more piece of useful leverage.

At the same time, the GCAP program may develop at surprising speed, and open up real opportunities for us. If that materializes, we will be in position to take full advantage. A fleet of Gripen, hopefully, will soon be integral to protecting our North for the next 30 years, but we have every reason to start the next chapter before they become obsolete, not after. That chapter may or may not involve GCAP, but there is no reason not to keep the option open as long as possible.

As long as it is being actively studied, GCAP reinforces a new state of affairs in defense matters, one where long-term planning permanently coexists with immediate concerns. Over time, we can hope that this becomes accepted as the new normal, by the public, DND, and defense industries, one where competent defense planning is ongoing and permanent.

No more one-and-done quick fixes. No more buying 4 used subs, and then forgetting all about subs for the next three decades. No more symbolic procurement announcements to satisfy the Parliament Hill news cycle. No more meaningless promises.

That is the hope, anyway, and it is important that we get it right. Carney will not be around forever, and we have to hope that when he is gone, he will have left behind a new institutional architecture. One that is globally respected, and widely acknowledged as serious and competent. Our continued sovereignty depends on it.

Videos like this one are an important part of holding the government to account. Esprit de Corps has been doing that thankless work for many bleak years. By sharing their videos and articles, and commenting on them, we can help to send a message to the government that the public at large is watching, and invested. The more of us, the better.

Share

Share

Too often conservative critiques of this country read, not as “here are some problems Canada is facing and here is how we can fix them,” but as “this country is fundamentally broken, and the proof of that is right next door.” The motto of the Order of Canada is “they desire a better country.” It doesn’t mean another country!

But then, is it any worse to favour destroying Canada by absorption into the American colossus than it is to favour destroying it by breaking it apart? What is truly remarkable is the willingness of some on the right – the far right, for the most part, but not exclusively – to carry water for both the Trump administration and the separatists.

… patriotism precludes tactics, for whatever end, that amount to threatening the country’s existence. You can’t pretend to love your country while you are holding a knife to its throat.

Beautifully put, but it also contained the following, which has led to this mild rebuttal of mine:

… the gist of many of these critiques is that the American position is always the reasonable one, and that it is Canada who is always the one out of line.

Again, on a given issue that may well be the case: supply management, for example. But the tone of these comments is that Canada is necessarily in the wrong on any issue, more or less by definition. If there is a problem between our two countries, it must be our fault; at any rate, the onus is always on us to resolve it.

Again, perfectly reasonable and well stated. But I note that it seems to have become axiomatic, even among the most reasonable conservatives, that supply management in our dairy industry has to go. That on that one issue, the Americans are absolutely right.

As far as I can tell, the argument boils down to a gut-level acceptance of the Reagan doctrine, i.e. that all government intervention is a priori a bad thing. That the private sector should always be allowed to do as it pleases, except in very rare circumstances. And of course, it is buttressed by one other argument: American milk is cheaper. Case closed, Q.E.D.

Ideologies always prefer to think in binaries. But a sane market economy is necessarily a balancing act. The state must allow sufficient freedom to allow for profit and innovation, while exercising enough control to prevent winner-take-all anarchy. And companies need to be able to keep the state honest and accountable, while recognizing that a regulatory environment keeps everyone honest, and levels the field. They must also realize and accept that the state oversees concerns that can not simply be reduced to the bottom line.

Personally, I believe supply management is preferable to the US model, in which corporations now have more rights than citizens (see: Citizens United). Furthermore, I think that Canadian society has a right to make that choice for itself, without consulting Uncle Sam. For the record, every arbitration around supply management has come to the same conclusion.

The American grievance comes down to one thing: they are not being allowed to destroy our dairy sector, and then flood our market with cheap, low-quality products. That’s it. That’s the whole beef (if you’ll excuse the pun).

As things stand, the balance of trade in dairy already heavily favours the US. So any argument that we are somehow “harming” their dairy industry is a flat-out lie. And Trump’s negotiators know that perfectly well. It’s just that lying is always their first and only gambit.

Agricultural policy is not about making the world safe for mega-corporations. It is a balancing act meant to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, and ensuring food security. In the US, 90% of the milk is produced by large-scale operations, leaving the crumbs to small family farms. Those small farms, that is, that are not staring at foreclosure.

As a result, you get millions of gallons of cheap, surplus milk, looking for new markets to squeeze. All of it laced with hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, as is consistently demonstrated with testing. And all of it also benefiting from subsidies, despite the Americans’ “free market” attacks on Canada But yes, the one conservative objection is correct, American milk is cheaper. It does not, however, contribute to a thriving, beautiful countryside, or to the health and quality of life of those who live there.

Any American tourist in rural France, for example, will marvel at the same thing: the beautiful countryside, dotted with small farms, and small market towns; the local produce, that is varied, fresh, plentiful, and delicious. And they might well wonder, why is everything so nice here? Well, because French society actively chooses to maintain the entire ecosystem, to support their way of life. And yes, sometimes these policies are denounced by other countries as “unfair”. But if it was left up to agribusiness, those same landscapes would be transformed into a sterile wasteland, featuring immense factory farms, vast monocultures, and dead villages.

Forty years ago, to talk like this was to identify yourself with a disconnected, hippie radical fringe. But today, given who these American corporations answer to, it no longer feels that way. They are the corporate arm of a state bent on domination, and the extraction of tribute.

Refusing them the ability to establish beachheads abroad is now the first step in self-defense. America no longer believes in preventing monopolies. In fact, the monopolists are in bed with the government. The US government no longer even believes in protecting its own citizens from their depredations, so it damn well doesn’t care about the interests of Canadians. Protecting those interests is up to us.

If, as a Canadian, you find a given government response doesn’t address your needs, then there are mechanisms to get those concerns addressed. However, once an entire sector has been handed over to American interests, good luck getting your concerns addressed by the kleptocrats hoovering up the profits. Don’t confuse your personal problems or concerns with the interests of the new Caligula and his rich buddies.

In market regulations, as in all things, Canada sits somewhere between the American and European models. Nonetheless, a short drive outside of Montreal takes me through quaint farming villages, and pleasant countrysides full of delicious food. I do not mind, at all, that the farmers are able to earn a decent living and lead a good life. That’s good for me, good for them, good for everybody.

And I most definitely do not mind if some outfit like Tyson Foods looks at the same scenery and sees a wasted opportunity for its shareholders. As Andrew Coyne said in his piece, loving your country means loving it warts and all. Supply Management can always be made better. But as it is, it is a part of the Canadian mosaic. And I reject the argument that Canadians should have less say than American corporations, when it comes to defining the very fabric of our own society.

In its small way, our system helps to keep us from having corporations as big as states tell us what our daily lives are going to look like. And spares us from driving past immense factory farms, pulling into a diner, and being served food that tastes like it was created in a lab.

I think I’ll leave the last word to Andrew Coyne, since I don’t want to distract too much from his largely positive and welcome message:

Finally, a tongue-in-cheek throwback to a Hollywood movie that I think got one thing right: today’s American corporations would sell anything, in a heartbeat, if they thought there was a good buck in it. Just ask Elon. Or the good folks at Purdue Pharma. If Trump’s CEO buddies asked him nicely, meaning with a check, he’d let them sell cans of Diet Fentanyl.

Share

Andre: Hell no! There are several sturdy pillars that will stabilize the economy. The stock market is rocking, consumer spending is off the hook, and there will always be negotiated offramps for trade disputes.

Me: Hmmm. Let’s take those one at a time, shall we?

Andre: Sure.

Me: The stock market is mainly healthy on the back of AI investments, which most analysts consider wildly overpriced, and due for a severe correction.

Andre: True.

Me: Doesn’t such a correction risk dragging down the rest of the stock market with it?

Andre: Well, yeah…

Me: And as far as consumer spending goes, isn’t that mostly driven by the top 20% who are doing well in the stock market (for now), while the bottom two thirds of the economy teeters on the brink of default?

Andre: Absolutely. There is not a lot of buffer there.

Me: OK. As for negotiated offramps, wouldn’t those require an administration that believes in negotiation? As Canada has found out, both deterrence and concessions are met with the exact same response: belligerent demands for more.

Andre: That is accurate. The current administration is really not great at this. So as long as they are in charge, things are not likely to improve on that front.

Me: Given all of that, why do you refer to a consensus around a soft landing?

Andre: Well, you see, the Fed has enormous leverage. If things get bad enough, they can always do a little quantitative easing.

Me: Yes, but isn’t a steadily increasing divestment from Treasuries already underway, and likely to accelerate? Won’t that severely limit, if not eliminate entirely, the Fed’s room to maneuver?

Andre: well, sure.

Me: So, again, I have to ask. Given all of these structural risks, why do you rule out steep decline?

Andre: Look, it’s not great. But I just mean it won’t be, like, a sudden total collapse.

Me: More like a long, sustained, inexorable decline.

Andre: Exactly!

Me: So it’s not that bad in the sense that, in the next few weeks we won’t be reduced to cannibalism.

Andre: We’re not even close to that. I don’t foresee cannibalism for several years.

Me: Thanks, Andre. The glass really is half full.

Share