2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Kirkhill]

On reflection, the fact that the deal remains in place if Greenland secedes from Denmark may be an indicatator of the "long play".

Project 2025 wasn't written for Trump. It is more like a fifth column manifesto to remake the US and the world. It has objectives and patience. Trump has neither.

This is why the removal of Trump will not be close to enough to stop the remodelling of America.

My opinion is that this is a bad thing. My opinion matters not one jot. We are all along for the ride whether we want to be or not

My opinion is similar on Project 2025 and Trump. The Project predates and will outlast Trump.

I believe that Project 2025 was inevitable in the sense that a new plan was in order, the existing plan (Atlantic Charter et al), being widely held as unsustainable.

As to the relative merits of the new plan I am less bothered. Nobody gets what they want. Plans never survive. Even the master planners of the communist world feel it necessary to rewrite their plans every five years, often according to the whims of The Dear Genius of the day. Societal Inertia plays a great role in affairs.

The kerfuffle over NATO and NORAD and Greenland is an example. Where we are looks a lot like where we were. The difference is that everybody else is looking to the same threats as the Americans and planning to spend money that the Americans felt had to be spent. But now it is not American money being spent.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My opinion is similar on Project 2025 and Trump. The Project predates and will outlast Trump.

Surely such a thing cannot exist. Trump is all chaos and bombast; there could not possibly be any single - let alone multiple - agenda being advanced by people behind him. It is imperative that critics continue to focus their time and attention on the man, not on the evolution of policies within the administration.

 

[Kirkhill]

I got a chuckle the other week or so ago when Carney alluded to the National Policy of Sir John A as the effective counter to McKInley's tariffs so beloved by Trump.

First of all the Liberals of Laurier fought the National Policy and argued for free trade. Starting a pattern that continued through the Mulroney FTA and GST, Laurier retained the National Policy.

But the National Policy wasn't a natiional policy. It was an Imperial Policy. It was a policy that tied Canadian trade into the British Empire. It was a policy that allowed Canadians to travel around the world on a British passport, to sell wheat, grain and cheese to Britain along with iron, steel and copper, to build the ships of the Empress and Allen lines, and to make Massey tractors an international standard.

That Empire, that Trade Zone, that US competitor, is gone now. Destroyed by the actions of the US through two world wars.

But we're better off without the Brits.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Surely such a thing cannot exist. Trump is all chaos and bombast; there could not possibly be any single - let alone multiple - agenda being advanced by people behind him. It is imperative that critics continue to focus their time and attention on the man, not on the evolution of policies within the administration.

It’s a fair hypothesis that all this Trump led chaos ends Jan 2029, but in the end it’s still a hypothesis.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It’s a fair hypothesis that all this Trump led chaos ends Jan 2029, but in the end it’s still a hypothesis.

The chaos goes away. The think tanks and their political access remain.

 

[Kirkhill]

US settles with Greenland and Denmark - and consequently JEF, NATO and the EU - in the Atlantic Arctic
US settles with Japan and South Korea in the Pacific Arctic.

Proposed US-Japan-ROK Arctic plan raises ‘geopolitical, security competition concerns’ - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

Where is Canada?


What is our Big Beautiful Deal going to look like?

 

[QV]

US settles with Greenland and Denmark - and consequently JEF, NATO and the EU - in the Atlantic Arctic
US settles with Japan and South Korea in the Pacific Arctic.

Proposed US-Japan-ROK Arctic plan raises ‘geopolitical, security competition concerns’ - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

Where is Canada?


What is our Big Beautiful Deal going to look like?

You should note from the article it is to strengthen against China and Russia. Canada cozying up to China would mean we’re going to be on the outside looking in.

 

[Czech_pivo]

You should note from the article it is to strengthen against China and Russia. Canada cozying up to China would mean we’re going to be on the outside looking in.

Is this even remotely true?

Maritime cooperation could draw on Japan's icebreaker construction expertise, developed through vessels such as the Antarctic research ship Shirase,

 

[YZT580]

Is this even remotely true?

Maritime cooperation could draw on Japan's icebreaker construction expertise, developed through vessels such as the Antarctic research ship Shirase,

Davies buying into Finland gave us that expertise. Would be better to team with the Koreans and learn how to build a frigate in something less than 5 years. A little sarcasm there but we need warships now not one a year for 15 years not including Halifax replacements

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You should note from the article it is to strengthen against China and Russia. Canada cozying up to China would mean we’re going to be on the outside looking in.

No! No! No! And no!

This is about the NORTHERN SEA ROUTE.

How many times do we have to explain the difference to people???? It's the route to the North of Russia, and, BTW, it is the shortest one from Asia to Europe. A lot shorter than the North West Passage (Canadian). Russia wants to control it and it has made deals with China over its use, but the world considers it international waters as long as you stay more than 12 NM from the Russian coast.

The idea here is the US partnering with Japan and RoK to use the US as the guarantor of free passage. Interestingly enough, it does nothing for the US, because the fastest Arctic route from Asia to Eastern seaboard of the USA is the Canadian North West passage, and it's not part of that deal.

 

[brihard]

No! No! No! And no!

This is about the NORTHERN SEA ROUTE.

How many times do we have to explain the difference to people???? It's the route to the North of Russia, and, BTW, it is the shortest one from Asia to Europe. A lot shorter than the North West Passage (Canadian). Russia wants to control it and it has made deals with China over its use, but the world considers it international waters as long as you stay more than 12 NM from the Russian coast.

The idea here is the US partnering with Japan and RoK to use the US as the guarantor of free passage. Interestingly enough, it does nothing for the US, because the fastest Arctic route from Asia to Eastern seaboard of the USA is the Canadian North West passage, and it's not part of that deal.

Yeah, we need to be cautious on that one. We claim sovereignty on the Northwest Passage that’s somewhat questionable. The Russians similarly assert full sovereignty over key straits on the Northern Sea Route. We probably want to keep our heads down on the subject of freedom of navigation in the NSR if we intend to continue to maintain our own claims over NWP.

 

[Good2Golf]

You should note from the article it is to strengthen against China and Russia. Canada cozying up to China would mean we’re going to be on the outside looking in.

Do you mean Canada ‘cozying’ up to China more than Trump will this week? The U.S. buys more than ten times goods from China than Canada does, in fact the U.S. is the largest buyer of Chinese goods, so which country is the coziest with China?

 

[Gordon Dundas/]

I actually surprised the American ambassador hasn't given us a list of Countries we're allowed to have diplomatic relations with much less trade.

 

[QV]

Do you mean Canada ‘cozying’ up to China more than Trump will this week? The U.S. buys more than ten times goods from China than Canada does, in fact the U.S. is the largest buyer of Chinese goods, so which country is the coziest with China?

I mean Canada pivoting to China (PMMC's new world order speech) and the EU (associate member) and away from the US.

A mistake. I believe this is PMMC's intention all along and is in part why we remain without a trade deal with the US.

 

[brihard]

I mean Canada pivoting to China (PMMC's new world order speech) and the EU (associate member) and away from the US.

A mistake. I believe this is PMMC's intention all along and is in part why we remain without a trade deal with the US.

Can you demonstrate ways in which we’re substantially ‘pivoting to’ China, beyond modest loosening of restrictions and increase of volume in a couple specific sectors of trade goods?

Our trade with the U.S. does and will continue to dwarf our trade with China, and the government’s not trying to change that.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Can you demonstrate ways in which we’re substantially ‘pivoting to’ China, beyond modest loosening of restrictions and increase of volume in a couple specific sectors of trade goods?

Our trade with the U.S. does and will continue to dwarf our trade with China, and the government’s not trying to change that.

In addition, @QV, care to inform us who China's biggest trade partner is?

 

[Good2Golf]

In addition, @QV, care to inform us who China's biggest trade partner is?

Hint: this country’s trade deficit with China is greater than half the entire amount of imports this country buys from Canada.

International Trade

www.census.gov

 

[QV]

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.

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

hard to take anything the US administration says seriously when their economic ties with China dwarf ours and they look to buy potash from Belarus instead of say Mosaic a company based in Tampa

 

[Eaglelord17]

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

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.