2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Czech_pivo]

Controlled trade is one thing, but being a tariff free back door to material dumped into NA priced below market (CCP subsidized, slave labor) is another. Chinese EVs is another issue, security specifically.

One of the objections to the US Trade deal is the approach to trading with China. The US is trying to secure itself from China's predatory methods. Canada ought to take a firm position on that with the US, but it seems to be resisting.

Diversifying away from the US is one of Canada's stated goals. But getting more involved with China is the mistake imo. The risks are already known:

-Economic coercion or sudden market loss
-Chinese supply chain dependance
-Tech and IP security
-Cybersecurity and espionage
-Foreign interference
-causing tensions with more important allies

I'm not saying Canada should avoid all trade with China, but I do not trust the LPC to not screw this up. I think the LPC in general admires how Brussels or the CCP operates.

To be more resilient Canada should emulate the US's rate of internal trade. The fact we can't freely trade internally is a major encumbrance for us. This probably should have been number 1 on PMMC to-do list... instead of running around the world. Some projects should be designated in the National Interest have been forced through months ago... instead we have MOUs and vetos handed out to small regional interests.

Besides a few thousand Chinese EV's (EV's that Ford's CEO is openly talking about teaming up with to build in the US), what products does Canada specifically buy from the China that the US doesn't buy?

Just to be clear - Canada does about 6-7% of its total trade with China - how much of the US's total trade does it do with China?

Answer - about 10-11%. So what the 'F' is the real issue here? If Canada increases its total trade with China by 50% it will be at BEST equal to the total trade that the US already has with China.

 

[QV]

You could replace China with USA in this part of the post and it would be the same.

Economic coercion and sudden market loss? Check.
US supply chain dependance? Check.
Tech and IP security issues? Check.
Cybersecurity and espionage? Check.
Foreign interference? Check.
Causing tensions with our allies? Check.

You would have to do an honest comparison on who your ideals align with.

This is basically a good vs evil distinction (CCP bad not everyday Chinese citizens). China severely restricts civil liberties, has a million Uyghurs in re-education camps, adopts predatory trade practices and the state is the market, it's legal system is an instrument of party control, its a totalitarian state run system.

To compare the US to this is hyperbole. I suspect elements of the progressive left in the LPC and EU see value in many aspects of China's systems.

 

[Good2Golf]

To be more resilient Canada should emulate the US's rate of internal trade. The fact we can't freely trade internally is a major encumbrance for us. This probably should have been number 1 on PMMC to-do list... instead of running around the world. Some projects should be designated in the National Interest have been forced through months ago... instead we have MOUs and vetos handed out to small regional interests.

This part I have no issue with at all, agree in principle. He did get that movement going, but to be honest, I see more residual resistance from the provinces unphuquing themselves than anything the Feds have yet to do. The only other comment I’d make is that I think the Feds should be moving out on a nationally-directed and funded pipeline east, one leg curving through N.Ont down to the refineries in S.Ont and the other leg up to Churchill RFN!

 

[Czech_pivo]

This part I have no issue with at all, agree in principle. He did get that movement going, but to be honest, I see more residual resistance from the provinces unphuquing themselves than anything the Feds have yet to do. The only other comment I’d make is that I think the Feds should be moving out on a nationally-directed and funded pipeline east, one leg curving through N.Ont down to the refineries in S.Ont and the other leg up to Churchill RFN!

Quebec is the main sticking point on many issues on this. Some of this will be because an election is just about to occur and some of it is just plain typical for how things have been over the last 50yrs.

 

[QV]

This part I have no issue with at all, agree in principle. He did get that movement going, but to be honest, I see more residual resistance from the provinces unphuquing themselves than anything the Feds have yet to do. The only other comment I’d make is that I think the Feds should be moving out on a nationally-directed and funded pipeline east, one leg curving through N.Ont down to the refineries in S.Ont and the other leg up to Churchill RFN!

Ok, then how about this:

To forge a closer more strategic relationship with the US:

Canada must align it's economic strength with continental security. By becoming America's most reliable economic and military partner, we unlock massive resource wealth to fund critical domestic priorities like healthcare, tech, and space exploration, and yes even green initiatives.

1. Continental resource security and trade alignment

• satisfy US demand first. Guarentee secure export of critical minerals, oil, NG, to the US ensuring their supply chains are fully insulated from global volatility
• Approve projects in the National Interest. Fast track major energy and infra projects bypassing local gridlock
• Move resources to global export markets. Build the pipes and infra to export surplus resources globally, but only after satisfying US domestic requirements. This also acts as a hedge, if US demand dips.

2. Unleash domestic economy

• eliminate interprovincial trade barriers that restrict the free flow of goods, services, labor between provinces. This is being done as I understand it... but do it faster!
• Fund healthcare. Channel massive windfall of new tax and royalty revenue generated by resource exports directly into funding critical healthcare improvements.
• Re-invest. Allocate resource revenues into important sectors such as new tech, AI, and space developments. This includes green energy but not to include throttling our resources development to achieve green.

3. Continental Defence. We must jealously guard our military and economic relationship with the US against competing interests.

• Military integration. Integrate our defence industrial bases to ensure continental soveriegnty.
• Meet our NORAD and NATO commitments - arguably well underway.
• align our foreign investment screening and tariff policies with the US to protect North America from hostile actors. This is hard for the globalists.

4. Negotiate from strength. Seek concessions from the US on what remains important to Canada.

• Buy American exemptions for Canadian companies, goods and contractors from US protectionist laws.
• Border supply chain fluidity, frictionless movement of goods and pre-cleared labor across the border
• Strategic tech sharing. Full access to restricted US defence tech, partnerships, joint space exploration in exchange for our critical mineral supply.

The current obstacles to this, as I can see are as follows:

• The EU pivot
• China concessions
• Ongoing trade tensions causing friction (which if we committed to #1-3, than 4 might be easier for us)
• we have not fast tracked national interest projects
• Media and political characterization of Mean Trump/US bad/poor victim Canada

 

[suffolkowner]

Ok, then how about this:

To forge a closer more strategic relationship with the US:

Canada must align it's economic strength with continental security. By becoming America's most reliable economic and military partner, we unlock massive resource wealth to fund critical domestic priorities like healthcare, tech, and space exploration, and yes even green initiatives.

1. Continental resource security and trade alignment

• satisfy US demand first. Guarentee secure export of critical minerals, oil, NG, to the US ensuring their supply chains are fully insulated from global volatility
• Approve projects in the National Interest. Fast track major energy and infra projects bypassing local gridlock
• Move resources to global export markets. Build the pipes and infra to export surplus resources globally, but only after satisfying US domestic requirements. This also acts as a hedge, if US demand dips.

2. Unleash domestic economy

• eliminate interprovincial trade barriers that restrict the free flow of goods, services, labor between provinces. This is being done as I understand it... but do it faster!
• Fund healthcare. Channel massive windfall of new tax and royalty revenue generated by resource exports directly into funding critical healthcare improvements.
• Re-invest. Allocate resource revenues into important sectors such as new tech, AI, and space developments. This includes green energy but not to include throttling our resources development to achieve green.

3. Continental Defence. We must jealously guard our military and economic relationship with the US against competing interests.

• Military integration. Integrate our defence industrial bases to ensure continental soveriegnty.
• Meet our NORAD and NATO commitments - arguably well underway.
• align our foreign investment screening and tariff policies with the US to protect North America from hostile actors. This is hard for the globalists.

4. Negotiate from strength. Seek concessions from the US on what remains important to Canada.

• Buy American exemptions for Canadian companies, goods and contractors from US protectionist laws.
• Border supply chain fluidity, frictionless movement of goods and pre-cleared labor across the border
• Strategic tech sharing. Full access to restricted US defence tech, partnerships, joint space exploration in exchange for our critical mineral supply.

The current obstacles to this, as I can see are as follows:

• The EU pivot
• China concessions
• Ongoing trade tensions causing friction (which if we committed to #1-3, than 4 might be easier for us)
• we have not fast tracked national interest projects
• Media and political characterization of Mean Trump/US bad/poor victim Canada

is this really different than what they have already?
what are we getting in return?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Ok, then how about this:

To forge a closer more strategic relationship with the US:

Canada will must align allow the US the ability to buy its resources at world market prices it's economic strength with continental security. By becoming Canada will continue to honour the existing CUMSA trade agreement, thus maintaining its position as America's most reliable economic and military partner, we unlock massive resource wealth to fund critical domestic priorities like healthcare, tech, and space exploration, and yes even green initiatives.

1. Continental resource security and trade alignment

• satisfy our Allied trading partners US demand first. Guarentee secure Ensure our ability to export of critical minerals, oil, NG, to the US allied trading partners, ensuring their supply chains are fully insulated from global volatility ability to buy our products at world market prices
• Approve projects in the National Interest. Fast track major energy and infra projects bypassing local gridlock
• Move resources to global export markets. Build the pipes and infra to export surplus resources globally, but only after satisfying US domestic requirements. This also acts as a hedge, if US demand dips.

2. Unleash domestic economy

• eliminate interprovincial trade barriers that restrict the free flow of goods, services, labor between provinces. This is being done as I understand it... but do it faster!
• Fund healthcare. Channel massive windfall of new tax and royalty revenue generated by resource exports directly into funding critical healthcare improvements. Ensure that additional revenue resources are used to maintain and improve our current AAA bond rating, along with expanding and recapitalizing the CAF in order to ensure that Canada's sovereignty is maintained and defended.
• Re-invest. Allocate resource revenues into important sectors such as new tech, AI, and space developments. This includes green energy but not to include throttling our resources development to achieve green.

3. Continental Defence. We must jealously guard our military and economic relationship within both NORAD and NATO, and where it is to the overall benefit of Canada, explore other international partnerships the US against competing interests.

• Military integration. Integrate our defence industrial bases to ensure continental soveriegnty.
• Meet our NORAD and NATO commitments - arguably well underway.
• align our foreign investment screening and tariff policies with the US to protect North America from hostile actors. This is hard for the globalists. Implement policies to ensure Canada's total defense, including possible sovereign Nuclear deterrent capabilities

4. Negotiate from strength. Seek concessions from the US on what remains important to Canada.

• Buy American exemptions for Canadian companies, goods and contractors from US protectionist laws. Implement Sovereign AI and Data Centre policies in order to ensure that Canadian personal data stays within Canada and under the control of Canadian owned corporations
• Border supply chain fluidity, frictionless movement of goods and pre-cleared labor across the border
• Strategic tech sharing. Full access to restricted US defence tech, partnerships, joint space exploration in exchange for our critical mineral supply. Broaden our partnerships with our Allies, and expand where and when necessary, in order to ensure that Canada is positioned to be exposed to the most cutting edge technologies and innovations

The current obstacles to this, as I can see are as follows:

• The EU pivot This is a potential strength, not an obstacle
• China concessions Ensure that Canada's overall trade with China is never greater than the US's overall trade with China
• Ongoing trade tensions causing friction (which if we committed to #1-3, than 4 might be easier for us) Canada will continue to honour and uphold the existing CUSMA agreement with the US
• we have not fast tracked national interest projects
• Media and political characterization of Mean Trump/US bad/poor victim Canada Continue to ensure that Canada's media, the 'freed of the press' and 'openess' continues to outperform and score higher on the 'World Press Freedom' rankings, than the US. Canada is currently ranked 20th in the world, while the US is ranked 64th.

 

[daftandbarmy]

is this really different than what they have already?
what are we getting in return?

Fast food joints above the Arctic Circle

 

[Good2Golf]

Ok, then how about this:

To forge a closer more strategic relationship with the US:

Canada must align it's economic strength with continental security. By becoming America's most reliable economic and military partner, we unlock massive resource wealth to fund critical domestic priorities like healthcare, tech, and space exploration, and yes even green initiatives.

1. Continental resource security and trade alignment

• satisfy US demand first. Guarentee secure export of critical minerals, oil, NG, to the US ensuring their supply chains are fully insulated from global volatility
• Approve projects in the National Interest. Fast track major energy and infra projects bypassing local gridlock
• Move resources to global export markets. Build the pipes and infra to export surplus resources globally, but only after satisfying US domestic requirements. This also acts as a hedge, if US demand dips.

2. Unleash domestic economy

• eliminate interprovincial trade barriers that restrict the free flow of goods, services, labor between provinces. This is being done as I understand it... but do it faster!
• Fund healthcare. Channel massive windfall of new tax and royalty revenue generated by resource exports directly into funding critical healthcare improvements.
• Re-invest. Allocate resource revenues into important sectors such as new tech, AI, and space developments. This includes green energy but not to include throttling our resources development to achieve green.

3. Continental Defence. We must jealously guard our military and economic relationship with the US against competing interests.

• Military integration. Integrate our defence industrial bases to ensure continental soveriegnty.
• Meet our NORAD and NATO commitments - arguably well underway.
• align our foreign investment screening and tariff policies with the US to protect North America from hostile actors. This is hard for the globalists.

4. Negotiate from strength. Seek concessions from the US on what remains important to Canada.

• Buy American exemptions for Canadian companies, goods and contractors from US protectionist laws.
• Border supply chain fluidity, frictionless movement of goods and pre-cleared labor across the border
• Strategic tech sharing. Full access to restricted US defence tech, partnerships, joint space exploration in exchange for our critical mineral supply.

The current obstacles to this, as I can see are as follows:

• The EU pivot
• China concessions
• Ongoing trade tensions causing friction (which if we committed to #1-3, than 4 might be easier for us)
• we have not fast tracked national interest projects
• Media and political characterization of Mean Trump/US bad/poor victim Canada

I think you are conflating reliability with subservience. The proposal you’ve formulated is transactionally lopsided to USA, and USA first acted counter to its own initiated and approved deals, so the issue of reliability os in fact the inverse of what you propose.

I’d like to see more press point out the fallacy of the U.S. speaking points about things like Canada’s auto industry taking advantage of America to flood America with its Canadian automobiles…like the Maple Heartbeat of Canada model seen here…

 

[QV]

CP, I don't think those edits would be as successful as the original, especially in the near term. Leveraging the worlds largest market maximally now, enabling internal trade to the greatest extent now, and creating the conditions for export markets to grow as our prosperity grows is in my opinion a better option. Focusing on total continental security now makes us far more powerful and richer, which then allows us to better support our other allies.

Trying to shore up bits and pieces with the EU, China, UK, and a host of other nations in little dribs and drabs might feel like "sovereignty", but would take decades. If that comes at the expense of an improved relationship with the US it is ultimately making us weaker.

Alternatively, we buy in with some concessions now, become far more prosperous and use the in-between time to shore up our position (export infra) so when the next round comes we are actually stronger and with options, and we are no longer 10-20 years away from being able to move to other markets like we are now. We'd have leverage that we don't now have.

 

[Czech_pivo]

is this really different than what they have already?
what are we getting in return?

We get to enjoy being 'on the bottom' while they are 'on top', that's about all that I see.

 

[Czech_pivo]

CP, I don't think those edits would be as successful as the original, especially in the near term. Leveraging the worlds largest market maximally now, enabling internal trade to the greatest extent now, and creating the conditions for export markets to grow as our prosperity grows is in my opinion a better option. Focusing on total continental security now makes us far more powerful and richer, which then allows us to better support our other allies.

Trying to shore up bits and pieces with the EU, China, UK, and a host of other nations in little dribs and drabs might feel like "sovereignty", but would take decades. If that comes at the expense of an improved relationship with the US it is ultimately making us weaker.

Alternatively, we buy in with some concessions now, become far more prosperous and use the in-between time to shore up our position (export infra) so when the next round comes we are actually stronger and with options, and we are no longer 10-20 years away from being able to move to other markets like we are now. We'd have leverage that we don't now have.

All the US has to do is simply say - 'we will honour CUSMA in its present form and would expect Canada and Mexico to continue to do so as well.'

Expect nothing more from us and we'll expect nothing more from them. We'll continue to aggressively move towards 3.5% military spending and then onwards to the 5% NATO standard. That's it.

 

[brihard]

1. Continental resource security and trade alignment

• satisfy US demand first. Guarentee secure export of critical minerals, oil, NG, to the US ensuring their supply chains are fully insulated from global volatility
• Approve projects in the National Interest. Fast track major energy and infra projects bypassing local gridlock
• Move resources to global export markets. Build the pipes and infra to export surplus resources globally, but only after satisfying US domestic requirements. This also acts as a hedge, if US demand dips.

Yeah, no. What you’re proposing is that we hand ourselves over voluntarily as a resource vassal.

The resources we extract and produce are for sale to the buyer who will offer our businesses the best price. Canada is a safe and reliable supplier. If U.S. purchasers value a stable, safe, reliable provider of commodities next door to them, they’re as welcome as any other purchasers to buy what we have to sell. I suspect they can easily negotiate reliable long term offtake agreements if they’re willing to commit from their end; resource producers tend to like reliable long term customers. However, other potential purchasers like this too. The resources will be sold to whoever offers our suppliers the best deals. Whether or not the Americans want to be those purchasers is a simple question of price point.

It would be wrong for the Canadian government to impose on Canadian miners or growers a requirement to sell to the U.S. first.

 

[QV]

I think you are conflating reliability with subservience. The proposal you’ve formulated is transactionally lopsided to USA, and USA first acted counter to its own initiated and approved deals, so the issue of reliability os in fact the inverse of what you propose.

Yes, at face value it is lopsided to the USA. It can be balanced with tweaks while maintaining Fortress North America at its core.

All the US has to do is simply say - 'we will honour CUSMA in its present form and would expect Canada and Mexico to continue to do so as well.'

Expect nothing more from us and we'll expect nothing more from them. We'll continue to aggressively move towards 3.5% military spending and then onwards to the 5% NATO standard. That's it.

The US doesn't separate national security and economic policy anymore. Supply chains are a defence necessity. So just hitting higher defence spending in Canada and maintaining status quo on CUSMA isn't enough.

We need to package defence and our critical resources. Fortress North America is a security perimeter not just another alliance. The US wants Canada to be part of a secure continental industrial base to insulate from global volatility. We should also want that. Our resources can position us as an indispensable partner, not a foreign competitor.

Yeah, no. What you’re proposing is that we hand ourselves over voluntarily as a resource vassal.

The resources we extract and produce are for sale to the buyer who will offer our businesses the best price. Canada is a safe and reliable supplier. If U.S. purchasers value a stable, safe, reliable provider of commodities next door to them, they’re as welcome as any other purchasers to buy what we have to sell. I suspect they can easily negotiate reliable long term offtake agreements if they’re willing to commit from their end; resource producers tend to like reliable long term customers. However, other potential purchasers like this too. The resources will be sold to whoever offers our suppliers the best deals. Whether or not the Americans want to be those purchasers is a simple question of price point.

It would be wrong for the Canadian government to impose on Canadian miners or growers a requirement to sell to the U.S. first.

Your ignoring geoeconomics. Critical minerals and energy are not mere commodities. They are national security assets. If we decided to sell to an adversary instead because of a price spike, the US would view that as a security threat and shut us out erasing any gain.

Using the vassal argument misunderstands leverage. The US needs critical minerals. We have it. If we act like a passive commodity market - selling to whomever walks in with the money - we remain small, vulnerable and subject to sudden US protectionism. If we build Fortress North America, we aren't handing over sovereignty. We are using our resource wealth as a geopolitical weapon to secure concessions. When you own the fuel and minerals to run the engine, you aren't the servant. You have actual leverage. Our climate cult in power has failed to take advantage of this.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes, at face value it is lopsided to the USA. It can be balanced with tweaks while maintaining Fortress North America at its core.



The US doesn't separate national security and economic policy anymore. Supply chains are a defence necessity. So just hitting higher defence spending in Canada and maintaining status quo on CUSMA isn't enough.

We need to package defence and our critical resources. Fortress North America is a security perimeter not just another alliance. The US wants Canada to be part of a secure continental industrial base to insulate from global volatility. We should also want that. Our resources can position us as an indispensable partner, not a foreign competitor.



Your ignoring geoeconomics. Critical minerals and energy are not mere commodities. They are national security assets. If we decided to sell to an adversary instead because of a price spike, the US would view that as a security threat and shut us out erasing any gain.

Using the vassal argument misunderstands leverage. The US needs critical minerals. We have it. If we act like a passive commodity market - selling to whomever walks in with the money - we remain small, vulnerable and subject to sudden US protectionism. If we build Fortress North America, we aren't handing over sovereignty. We are using our resource wealth as a geopolitical weapon to secure concessions. When you own the fuel and minerals to run the engine, you aren't the servant. You have actual leverage. Our climate cult in power has failed to take advantage of this.

the US/Trump will just tariff some other critical mineral when they have a fit just like they did with aluminum. We are not stopping the US from getting critical minerals

 

[QV]

All the US has to do is simply say - 'we will honour CUSMA in its present form and would expect Canada and Mexico to continue to do so as well.'

Expect nothing more from us and we'll expect nothing more from them. We'll continue to aggressively move towards 3.5% military spending and then onwards to the 5% NATO standard. That's it.

This is a trap. An illusion of sovereignty. A blue print for managed decline and irrelevance. We can't continue to fund 2% 3.5 or 5% NATO defence spending let alone health care repairs on a stagnant low productivity economy - and that's what we have.

We need to use Fortress North America as a lucrative spring board now, while the iron is hot. We buy in with calculated concessions, maximize the US market, tear down interprovincial trade barriers immediately, generate the massive fiscal windfall. We then use the wealth in the intervening time to build our global export infra that does not yet exist. When the next round of geopolitical realignment comes, we will actually be in a major position of strength with real leverage.

A lot of people will look at this as kissing the ring or bending the knee... couldn't be further from that.