• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

The world being dependant on the US made the world overall a much safer place.

As the US retreats, other powers will seek to fill the power vacuum left behind, which will result in more land/resource grab wars like the one in Ukraine.

It's less about wanting the US in charge, and more about wanting the peace and stability that a completely dominant and mostly benign superpower brings.

That dependence made the dependents weaker and more reliant on the US. The people working and paying the taxes and shedding the blood got fed up with nobody else showing up and no credit given. In fact the only received more criticism.

We, Canadians and the rest of the OECD, did this to ourselves.

Co-operation requires mutual work.
 
Whether it's energy production or the ability to project hard military power, very few have "shown up".

It's about potential and output. Canada is not meeting it's potential and therefore has little output to show for it.
 
The world being dependant on the US made the world overall a much safer place.

As the US retreats, other powers will seek to fill the power vacuum left behind, which will result in more land/resource grab wars like the one in Ukraine.

It's less about wanting the US in charge, and more about wanting the peace and stability that a completely dominant and mostly benign superpower brings.

Our problem is we wanted the US to act but we wanted to make their decisions.
 
That dependence made the dependents weaker and more reliant on the US. The people working and paying the taxes and shedding the blood got fed up with nobody else showing up and no credit given. In fact the only received more criticism.
Which was their plan all along. They forced the other powers to give up their empires so that America could safely stay #1.

The people complaining now are the people who are living with the reality their predecessors set-up.

We, Canadians and the rest of the OECD, did this to ourselves.

We did it with America's support, right up until it was politically inconvenient for them for domestic politics. Now that they are pulling back internationally to suit their domestic needs, they are losing their international influence, they spend decades building/enforcing.

Co-operation requires mutual work.
They wanted compliance, now they want co-operation... with compliance.
 
That same half though still want the world to bend to their will though.
That's not true. The non-interventionist left and non-interventionist right do not want the responsibility and are not interested in throwing the US's weight around.

What some of the people who appear to desire "bend to the will" really want is expeditious means of dealing with tiresome threats - terrorists, irritating governments (eg. Iran) and wannabes (eg. Houthis), drug-runners, etc - without all the rest of the baggage of the "international order".
 
As the US retreats, other powers will seek to fill the power vacuum left behind, which will result in more land/resource grab wars like the one in Ukraine.
The "other powers" inclined to behave that way do not add up to the DIME capabilities of those who might oppose them. Europe is easily capable of keeping Russia in its corner. Other Asian countries are capable of doing the same to China. But: money, money, money.
It's less about wanting the US in charge, and more about wanting the peace and stability that a completely dominant and mostly benign superpower brings.
"brings" is an amusing substitution for "pays for".
 
That's not true. The non-interventionist left and non-interventionist right do not want the responsibility and are not interested in throwing the US's weight around.
That is not what the current administration is doing though. They want a transactional relationship with the world and they want it up be one sided on their terms.
 
Apparently some people are short on negotiating experience.

The other side usually fights to get as much as it can. Nothing personal.

Just business.
 
Apparently some people are short on negotiating experience.

The other side usually fights to get as much as it can. Nothing personal.

Just business.
Sure. Until you do so by breaking rules and making things up. Or get upset when the other side doesn’t acquiesce or reacts in kind.

Which is why we need to stop viewing the US as reliable or as a friend . They want a transactional relationship and is creating competitors instead of allies.
 
That is not what the current administration is doing though. They want a transactional relationship with the world and they want it up be one sided on their terms.
Yes, but they aren't half the country. They are just the current administration.

All following figures approximate.

Party affiliation is approximately 45% for each (including leaners), leaving 10% unaffiliated (Pew).

Registration is 190 million - 37 million affiliated Republican and 44 million Democratic (from here).

The Democratic party is following the lead of what I estimate to be the left-most 1/4 to 1/3 of the party. I figure that during the Biden administration the agenda was mostly being set by a vocal active minority amounting to perhaps 1/12 to as little as 1/16 of registered voters.

The Republicans are mostly following the nat-cons. I estimate their fraction of total conservatives to be even smaller than 1/4, based on observing that there aren't very many senators or members closely aligned so much as going along with the Trump political agenda.

Either way, the US is being yanked between two extremes at the behest of what are very small minorities. I haven't thought about the Democratic problem enough to characterize it, but in the case of Republicans it's because Trump showed up as the first guy to look like he wouldn't just roll over for every dirty thing Republicans believe Democrats do.

On any particular issue, there is usually plenty of conservative dissent against Trump, but it is rarely pan-conservative - some approve, some disapprove.

The idea that there's some large MAGA constituency for everything Trump does is mistaken. It's not large, but it is vocal and activist (like the Democratic leftmost minority), and the Trump-opposed media have an obvious interest in making it look larger and more threatening than it is.

The key animating feature of MAGA is "again" - conservative who believe things were better, then got worse, and are somehow getting better again.
 
The "other powers" inclined to behave that way do not add up to the DIME capabilities of those who might oppose them. Europe is easily capable of keeping Russia in its corner. Other Asian countries are capable of doing the same to China. But: money, money, money.
This goes back to US foreign policy that intentionally kept the European/Western aligned powers weak, so that they couldn't stand-up to America too hard. It was intentional policy, that was designed to ensure that America had the final say in decisions.

America right now is trying to suck and blow at the same time. They want to be less depended on for hard power, while still expecting to have the same soft power. That's not how it works in the real world... America's soft power was/is based on two pillars; their massive economy, and their massive military. As they try to back off on one of those pillars, they upset the balance, and as a consequence lose soft power.

Based on America seeming less reliable on the hard power front, others are re-arming. The problem with how it's happening is that it's not just the "good guys" who are re-arming. Adding to the problem, the "good guys" have complex kit that costs a lot and takes a lot of time to build, so they are re-arming slower than the "other guys".


To bring all of this back to the topic of this thread; Canada is a day late an a dollar short with rebuilding the CAF, but at least there seems to be some movement in a positive direction on the equipment front. My biggest fear is that we will waste time and effort trying to get "perfect" and end up with nothing or not enough when the balloon goes up.
 
Sure. Until you do so by breaking rules and making things up. Or get upset when the other side doesn’t acquiesce or reacts in kind.

Which is why we need to stop viewing the US as reliable or as a friend . They want a transactional relationship and is creating competitors instead of allies.

I agree with you entirely wrt the US.

Operating principle 1
There are no friends

Operating principle 2
Rely on yourself

Co-operation among equals is great and great things can be accomplished through mutual effort.

Survival is a solitary endeavour.
 
I agree with you entirely wrt the US.

Operating principle 1
There are no friends

Operating principle 2
Rely on yourself

Co-operation among equals is great and great things can be accomplished through mutual effort.

Survival is a solitary endeavour.
This seems to run counter to organizations like the EU and NATO, two organizations that arguably have done the heaviest lifting in terms of keeping the western world out of globe spanning wars of destruction.

But sure, lets blow them up and see what results from that. Cannot be that bad...
 
This seems to run counter to organizations like the EU and NATO, two organizations that arguably have done the heaviest lifting in terms of keeping the western world out of globe spanning wars of destruction.

But sure, lets blow them up and see what results from that. Cannot be that bad...

Business partners shouldn't be friends. That involves a level of emotion best left out of business (the elbows up crowd struggle with this one).

You can't be a member of NATO, run your military into the ground are not a great contributor to deterrence, then bitch nobody wants to help you anymore.

Membership isn't just all benefits, there are also responsibilities.
 
The world being dependant on the US made the world overall a much safer place.

As the US retreats, other powers will seek to fill the power vacuum left behind, which will result in more land/resource grab wars like the one in Ukraine.

It's less about wanting the US in charge, and more about wanting the peace and stability that a completely dominant and mostly benign superpower brings.

I don't see a retreat. I see compelling others (EU) to pull its fair share of the work load.

If China kicks off on Taiwan, the US might be quite consumed, and it's in the EU's best interest to be able to deter Russia without heavy lifting from the US.
 
Business partners shouldn't be friends. That involves a level of emotion best left out of business (the elbows up crowd struggle with this one).

You can't be a member of NATO, run your military into the ground are not a great contributor to deterrence, then bitch nobody wants to help you anymore.

Membership isn't just all benefits, there are also responsibilities.
Sure.

But then you have Poland. Poland spends more per capita on their military than the USA. One of the biggest militaries in Europe.

The USA won't commit to defend them either. So what, Poland pays the price because Spain and Canada aren't meeting their defense spending?

That's the problem. There is no making sense of the US administration. They won't defend those who don't meet defense spending. Okay, fair. They also won't defend those that DO meet defense spending...So meet defense spending or don't? Who knows? Nobody knows.

So what is NATO?

Defense for all?

Defense for some?

Defense for those who meet the 2 percent?

Defense for none?

All signs are starting to point to the last one, which invalidates the whole "You can't be a member of NATO, run your military into the ground are not a great contributor to deterrence, then bitch nobody wants to help you anymore. "
 
I don't see a retreat. I see compelling others (EU) to pull its fair share of the work load.

If China kicks off on Taiwan, the US might be quite consumed, and it's in the EU's best interest to be able to deter Russia without heavy lifting from the US.
Which Allies are you expecting to pick and pull their fair share that is related to the ceasing to exist US AID?
 
Sure.

But then you have Poland. Poland spends more per capita on their military than the USA. One of the biggest militaries in Europe.

The USA won't commit to defend them either. So what, Poland pays the price because Spain and Canada aren't meeting their defense spending?

That's the problem. There is no making sense of the US administration. They won't defend those who don't meet defense spending. Okay, fair. They also won't defend those that DO meet defense spending...So meet defense spending or don't? Who knows? Nobody knows.

So what is NATO?

Defense for all?

Defense for some?

Defense for those who meet the 2 percent?

Defense for none?

All signs are starting to point to the last one, which invalidates the whole "You can't be a member of NATO, run your military into the ground are not a great contributor to deterrence, then bitch nobody wants to help you anymore. "
I'm sitting waiting for the Reporter - US or a European - who asks Trump what the US response would be if 3 Russian jets entered US airspace for 12 mins.....
 

well these are some interesting allegations.....

Bill Hader Popcorn GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
Back
Top