I want us as far away from that shit as possible, even if it means leaving Five Eyes.
Redragontoughstreet on
Partnering with EU countries, Ukraine and South Korea makes way more sense for us than trying to please bi-polar America anyway.
taco_helmet on
I’d be curious to hear what NatSec insiders think of this decision, but my sense is that this is about politically insulating US military leadership.
Trump has a long and strained relationship with his generals and joint chiefs. Milley described him as „fascist to the core“. Mattis and Kelly described Trump as a threat to the Constitution. Trump and his associates have been steadily purging the military of anyone who isn’t personally loyal to him, but loyal to the Constitution.
I don’t think Trump trusts his military leaders and I don’t think his administration is comfortable with his military having any diplomatic function. It undermines his strategy to use threats and intimidation when military and civilian officials set a cooperative and pragmatic tone.
Snurgisdr on
>as former President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, famously said twenty years ago, for the United States, “security trumps trade.”
True.
>Geography, however, prevents the two countries from breaking up. They must live with each other, and as was the case when the PJBD was established in 1940, they have a vested interest in defending the continent together.
Sadly, no longer true. By their own unfortunate choice, the US is now the greatest threat to our security. We do still have a mutual interest in defending the continent, but that has to come second after defending against the threat on our southern border.
zachem62 on
Imagine two business partners who are arguing.
One partner says: „I’m upset, so I’m cancelling our weekly meetings until you do what I want.“
That might pressure the other partner. But those meetings were also how they solved problems and stayed aligned. That’s essentially what the article thinks is happening.
It argues that the US is trying to pressure Canada into being a better defence partner, but by suspending one of the main forums that keeps the two countries talking, it may actually be weakening the relationship over the long term.
The thing is, the article isn’t really asking whether the US is treating Canada fairly. It’s asking whether the US is using its leverage effectively. That’s a very US-centric lens.
A Canadian reading is simpler. If the US can weaponize trade, defence cooperation, and bilateral institutions whenever politics shifts, then reducing dependence on the US isn’t „drift.“ It’s common sense.
TOdEsi on
This is a blessing in disguise for Canada. I have hated that Canada had been sleepwalking into becoming another state. Only good thing Trump did was to reawaken the Canadian patriotism!!
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
6 Kommentare
They want to merge their military with Israel.
I want us as far away from that shit as possible, even if it means leaving Five Eyes.
Partnering with EU countries, Ukraine and South Korea makes way more sense for us than trying to please bi-polar America anyway.
I’d be curious to hear what NatSec insiders think of this decision, but my sense is that this is about politically insulating US military leadership.
Trump has a long and strained relationship with his generals and joint chiefs. Milley described him as „fascist to the core“. Mattis and Kelly described Trump as a threat to the Constitution. Trump and his associates have been steadily purging the military of anyone who isn’t personally loyal to him, but loyal to the Constitution.
I don’t think Trump trusts his military leaders and I don’t think his administration is comfortable with his military having any diplomatic function. It undermines his strategy to use threats and intimidation when military and civilian officials set a cooperative and pragmatic tone.
>as former President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, famously said twenty years ago, for the United States, “security trumps trade.”
True.
>Geography, however, prevents the two countries from breaking up. They must live with each other, and as was the case when the PJBD was established in 1940, they have a vested interest in defending the continent together.
Sadly, no longer true. By their own unfortunate choice, the US is now the greatest threat to our security. We do still have a mutual interest in defending the continent, but that has to come second after defending against the threat on our southern border.
Imagine two business partners who are arguing.
One partner says: „I’m upset, so I’m cancelling our weekly meetings until you do what I want.“
That might pressure the other partner. But those meetings were also how they solved problems and stayed aligned. That’s essentially what the article thinks is happening.
It argues that the US is trying to pressure Canada into being a better defence partner, but by suspending one of the main forums that keeps the two countries talking, it may actually be weakening the relationship over the long term.
The thing is, the article isn’t really asking whether the US is treating Canada fairly. It’s asking whether the US is using its leverage effectively. That’s a very US-centric lens.
A Canadian reading is simpler. If the US can weaponize trade, defence cooperation, and bilateral institutions whenever politics shifts, then reducing dependence on the US isn’t „drift.“ It’s common sense.
This is a blessing in disguise for Canada. I have hated that Canada had been sleepwalking into becoming another state. Only good thing Trump did was to reawaken the Canadian patriotism!!