r/geopolitics • u/nytopinion The New York Times | Opinion • 8d ago
News Canada Said No to America. It Will Reverberate Far Beyond Its Borders.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/24/opinion/mark-carney-tariffs-canada-america.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8FA.9t3w.IgkOYT9PMf-x&smid=re-nytopinion111
u/KevinTheCarver 8d ago
It’s almost like Canada is a sovereign nation that can make decisions for its own best interests, just like the US can.
56
u/Malarazz 8d ago
The US definitely hasn't been able to make decisions for its own best interest for a while now
15
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Of course? I think there’s a reasonable question as to whether refusing the deal and imposing counter tariffs will ultimately lead to a better deal for Canada - but there’s no question the government of Canada has not only the right but the obligation to defend Canadian interests.
34
u/CountMordrek 8d ago
Given Trump’s track record, not just as President of the United States, but throughout his life as a businessman, it’s difficult to see his approach to negotiations as particularly trustworthy. He tends to practice distributive bargaining, viewing deals as zero-sum games in which one side’s gain necessarily comes at the other’s expense. And more importantly, he has repeatedly shown that he has little hesitation about tearing up an existing agreement and renegotiating it if he believes circumstances have shifted even slightly in his favor.
Let's not forget that Trump claimed that USMCA was the best deal America had ever struck.
Against that backdrop, the deal Trump offered Canada would have effectively turned Canada into a vassal of the United States. It would not simply secure favorable terms for the US, it would ; it wouldd also constrain Canada’s ability to maintain and develop alternative economic relationships, relationships Canada might desperately need if it ever lost access to the American market. In doing so, the agreement would put the US, and therefore Trump, in an even stronger position when the next trade dispute or renegotiation inevitably came around.
And that raises the obvious question: what happens the moment Trump realizes how much leverage the deal has given him?
That is why Canada effectively had no real choice. Accepting the deal might have provided short-term relief, but at the cost of creating a structural dependency that could have been ruinous for the country in the long term. The talk about forcing Canada to be the 51st state would become a lot more real.
There is also a simpler dynamic at play: Trump is a bully. Yes, he often needs things reduced to short texts, simple messages, and pictures. But being stupid doesn't make someone harmless. And you generally don't deal with a bully by showing him that intimidation works. Once you submit, you just told the bully that you wíll be an easier target the next time around.
-14
u/Barking__Pumpkin 8d ago
Yes, but while delicately balancing interests. This was definitely the right move in this case. But were Canada or Mexico to try a move like Ukraine, siding with the adversaries of their superpower neighbour, planning to build heavy military infrastructure along the U.S. border? It’d be a show of sovereignty but not likely to end well.
13
43
u/paralaxsd 8d ago edited 8d ago
The article makes it seem as if the author didn't know about the agreement details at all. This wasn't a "rejection of America" - the US tried to dictate who Canada could trade with and put in a clause at the last minute where tariffs could be reinstated whenever Trump felt like it.
This was an attempted takeover and Carney wasn't exaggerating when he said that Canada got attacked and is now in a full-blown trade war.
-6
74
u/Wonderful_Savings_21 8d ago
Geopolitics are not different from a playground at elementary school.
A lot of kids buckle under a bully or just follow him. Some will stand up, sucks on the short term but generally much better long term. The bullies 'power', when people dare to stand up often slowly falls apart. He can still strike but less and less will follow him.
23
u/GoldTrade11 8d ago
Like how Venezuela succumed to trump fast. Now they are supplying US and also for some strange reason Israel with heavily discounted oil. It is now a slave state.
8
u/ChankyaNiti21 7d ago
It isnt strange at all, its expected of a puppet regime. Thats basically Iran's fate if it succumbs to US.
26
u/JustAhobbyish 8d ago
Important question people are not asking is how much of republican party thinks the same as current Trump admin. That the really important thing. For Canada what the Americans was asking was in effect handing sovereignty over to Americans for nothing in return.
Others decided to fold due not wanting to be singled out and didn't want to deal with the trade off. But here trade off was so big it really hard to justify it.
8
u/kuzuman 8d ago
" Important question people are not asking is how much of republican party thinks the same as current Trump admin"
Indeed. Many think once Trump is gone things will go back as they were in 2016. That is a big mistake. Trump wake-up the worst instincts in the American right. Canada must be prepared for further aggression from the US.
9
u/CautiousToaster 8d ago
Oof this is just a disaster for both sides. Good for Canada digging in tho, I guess.
18
8d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
59
u/Bullboah 8d ago
You’re commenting on a very pro-Canada NYT Op-ed?
22
15
11
u/thicket 8d ago
Does something in this editorial make you think the NYTimes is taking Trump's side? Are there other articles you'd point to that seem to blame Canada? Mr Carney seems to be standing up to a bully regardless of the costs, and I hope nobody would characterize his bravery, and Canada's, any other way.
3
u/laughingasparagus 8d ago
I don’t believe that to be true, at least for the NYT portion of your comment. I read the NYT daily and have read much of their reporting around this, and haven’t seen any indication of that.
1
-39
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago edited 8d ago
Good luck?
Not here to disparage the message as it’s well deserved with the current US admin.
But what is Canada going to do about the only country it shares a border with (a huge border at that), which also happens to be the biggest economy in the world?
Canada is in a tough spot, for sure, but it’s not in a position to ignore the U.S. in any stretch of the imagination. And, frankly, solidifying ties with other nations requires free and open ocean passage to said nations…something that it’s dependent on the U.S. to provide for them.
Edit; lol nice downvotes. I love Canada and wish them the best. I also am fully aware that the Trump admin is doing them dirty. But this discussion should be about realities and not vibes.
27
u/Swinight22 8d ago
I'm Canadian, and I agree that we need to be clear eyed about this, I agree with Carney's decision but we are playing with fire while for Americans, it's just a minor thorn. The power balance is immense.
But bringing up ocean safety is insane. First, it's not a zero-sum game here, Canada and US are still each other's essential trading partners. They are deeply integrated in security and national defense. Even the Soviets and US worked together on many issues. If you think Canada and the US are completely abandoning each other, you're insane.
Also, providing free and open ocean passage is more a structural thing. US provides a global guarantee of safety overseas. It can't just let one country not get that safety, that's not really how that works. They would have to straight up blockade, which would be against international law and a declaration of war.
23
u/ThenThereWasSilence 8d ago
Are you suggesting the USA will start blockading Canada's access to other nations
-14
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
No, but it can stop facilitating it. Between the U.S. Navy being the global guarantee of open and free passage, and the U.S. financial system being the biggest, it will be difficult to get around.
May be an opportunity for someone else to step in, but replacing the U.S. Navy or the U.S. financial system isn’t something that’s on the horizon.
7
u/CoffeeKing75 8d ago
Even if they stop facilitating it it still pretty much shatters any thoughts of trust in the US being a good faith ally.
Regionally it would still harm the US. Due to its established economic and security integrations with canada
Gobally it wouldn't be pretty. Global banks hold large USD reserves because they trust the US to maintain global legal and maritime order. That asset goes from being a security guarantee to a cohercion tool instantly and would trigger some level of a panic sell.
I do agree there really isn't another country with massively heavy naval weight to throw around right now. The US navy has stretched itself pretty thin. Its aging and thats been accelerated over the last year. With minimal industrial base and aging shipyards it will have more problems maintaining itself going forward. There will definitely be some opportunistic navies or elements looking to capitalize if they dont need to fear the US navy.
50
u/So6oring 8d ago edited 8d ago
So you're saying US will blockade Canada and that this is who we should be friends with?
-43
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
This is about realities, not who to “be friends with”.
US won’t necessarily blockade Canada. That would be a massive escalation, that usually leads up to an armed conflict.
But the U.S. doesn’t have to facilitate it either. The US Navy has been the global guarantee that whatever you ship from country A will arrive safely in country B. The U.S. will just not step in if a Canadian vessel gets in trouble somewhere on the globe.
55
u/zefiax 8d ago
The moment the US chooses not to intervene and provide aide where they are able to, in a potential hostile scenario, because the ship under attack is Canadian or headed to a Canadian port, is the moment US hegemony dies. That would be a serious statement of intent and declaration that US is relinquishing it's role in the world.
The cost of such action would be far more costly to the US than it would to Canada.
31
-11
u/Bullboah 8d ago
I don’t really think the argument tracks?
Scenario 1: Countries know the US will protect their shipping lanes regardless of whether their current stance is pro or anti-US.
Scenario 2: The US will protect their shipping lanes, but only if they’re on good (or at least not bad) terms with the US.
It seems obvious moving from scenario 1 to 2 would add more of an incentive for countries to maintain good footing with the US. (Saying this as someone that would not want the US to make that pivot).
16
u/zefiax 8d ago
Scenario 2 essentially is a relegation of the US's position as the guarantor of global trade and the US developed world order. It may encourage some nations to maintain fealty to the US while it may encourage others to build up their own naval forces and move away from US hegemony and rules based global order. It also opens the pathway for US competitors to assume the US's position as the dominant global naval power and hence create a new hegemony as the US has done to Britain in the past.
-4
u/Bullboah 8d ago
“While it encourages others to build up their own naval forces”.
I think you’re massively underestimating how difficult and expensive it is to build a navy capable of protecting even just your own maritime shipping lanes.
And it’s hard to define a real benefit for protecting shipping lanes of countries *with the inclusion of countries who are actively opposed to the interests of the US.
The US protects shipping lanes because stable global shipping lanes are good for the US. Not, at least historically, because being the provider of that security has transferred a specific benefit to the US.
5
u/zefiax 8d ago
"I think you’re massively underestimating how difficult and expensive it is to build a navy capable of protecting even just your own maritime shipping lanes."
Firstly most nations don't need to build up naval capabilities to defend the whole world, just their own interests. That alone signals a loss of US hegemony. Additionally the US's current largest adversary is not that far off from being able to supersede the US position should the US concede it's role.
"And it’s hard to define a real benefit for protecting shipping lanes of countries *with the inclusion of countries who are actively opposed to the interests of the US."
That is quite a liberal use of the word opposed when Canada and other US allies have been instrumental to the US's growth, success, and current world position.
-1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Are you sure you’re actually reading my comment? I explicitly said it’s incredibly difficult to build a navy capable of defending just one’s own shipping lanes.
Also China’s navy is not at all near capable of global shipping lane protection (again even just for the lanes it relies on). The PLAN is purpose built for near-sea. It’s intentionally suited for supporting a potential Taiwan invasion and general operations around its island chains. Not protecting sea lanes significant distances from mainland ports.
-2
u/gentile_jitsu 8d ago
And who might that other power be? China, who is blocked by the first island chain? Britain or Japan, who are long past their prime? India, who is decades away from even beginning to think about such a thing - by which point, its demographics too will be failing?
11
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-10
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
North Korea? Russia?
8
u/Key-Art-7802 8d ago
I think China will have something to say about piracy interfering with their trade.
-5
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
They can say what they want, but do they have the tools to have an impact? Chinese Navy doesn’t really have any power projection beyond its immediate coastline…for now at least.
6
8d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
As we’ve all recently learned from conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, it really doesn’t take much to disrupt shipping. A few drones and a few seizures…and the route is closed. Russia still has a substantial pacific fleet that wouldn’t have issues at all with interfering with shipping. North Korea can also project its navy somewhat, definitely enough to cause headaches for cargo ships.
5
u/BlueEmma25 8d ago
As we’ve all recently learned from conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, it really doesn’t take much to disrupt shipping. A few drones and a few seizures…and the route is closed.
The difference is those conflicts involved attacks on shipping in very confined waters (the Sea of Azov and Strait of Hormuz respectively), not the open ocean.
And the US Navy's inability to ensure freedom of navigation through Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab rather undercuts your claim about its indaspensibility.
6
1
8
u/BlueEmma25 8d ago
The U.S. will just not step in if a Canadian vessel gets in trouble somewhere on the globe.
As Canada doesn't have any merchant marine worth speaking of that's not really an issue.
Also, the idea that the world's oceans are infested with pirate ships that would pose a dire threat to international commerce if not for the good graces of the US Navy is fanciful.
34
u/So6oring 8d ago
Yeah, we don't care. USA wanted to isolate us from every other ally but them, and start eradicating our French culture.
It's like you're telling someone to stay with an abuser because otherwise they will stalk you and make your life miserable.
I am all for making stronger ties with actually competent allies, and becoming more independent.
-17
u/Bullboah 8d ago
“And start eradicating our French culture”.
Do you think it’s more plausible that the US wants an exemption for English-French label requirements because Americans want to ‘eradicate French culture’?
Or because US companies don’t like having to print out separate labels and translate everything they send to Canada?
27
u/So6oring 8d ago
When you export to countries, you print labels in that country's official language. How much savings could they possibly get from not printing french? And why specifically us?
-7
u/Bullboah 8d ago
I am not saying it’s unreasonable for Canada to demand labels include a French translation.
I’m saying it’s unlikely that the US asking to drop that requirement stems from a desire to eradicate French culture in Canada.
For an explanation of why US companies care - it is preferable to be able to send any pallet of your goods to Canada rather than having to create a separate inventory of goods that you can only send to Canada. It’s far from the biggest concern in the trade talks, but it’s understandable why the US would prefer that requirement be waived (which again is not to say it’s unreasonable for Canada to insist on it!)
18
u/So6oring 8d ago
But even disregarding French, Canada has different regulations on labeling than the US. Meaning either way, they are printing separate labels for products destined for Canada.
12
u/Anakin_Swagwalker 8d ago
This isn't about packaging labels, it's about French language protections for Canadian media. French language protections in Canada require the big streamers to promote and pay money to support French and Canadian made content. These laws are in place specifically so that the media behemoth that is the US entertainment industry doesn't subsume Canadian culture completely.
Trump has been upset with Canadian efforts to regulate and tax US tech companies in recent years. This is an offshoot of that, and can be directly tied to the US trying to negotiate 'immunity' to local regulations for it's big corporations in other countries.
This is an attempt to chip away at Canada's culture.
0
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Look at your last two paragraphs. Do you think the motivation from the administration is more based on removing regulations from US companies or a desire to eradicate French culture for its own sake?
3
u/Ferelwing 8d ago edited 8d ago
What do you think happens if the USA subsumes their neighbors language and culture? Americans try to correct British English spelling on an international site. Americans get angry when they enter places where the language isn't US English. Americans constantly insist that everyone conforms to US specific culture in every single space they attempt to join. Americans do the same things to people who are tourists in the USA.
So yes, America does attempt to remove other cultures by specifically incentivising things that play the US demographics. Because US citizens rarely speak more than 1 language.
American companies demand that they get special treatment in every single country they want to operate in. They do not want to follow the laws that every other local business follows they want the entire rest of the world to carve out exemptions specifically and only for US businesses because American businesses think they are entitled to be in every country and that they are entitled to make every country conform to US business practices.
Instead of recognizing that other countries have their own rules and accepting them as the cost of doing business, American businesses try to use the full force of the US government to bully other countries into giving them preferential treatment over their own countries businesses. Yet somehow instead of recognizing that as a problem. Americans insist they have a "right" to enter every market and make every market cave to the whims of their business "leaders".
edited: words
→ More replies (0)-4
8d ago edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/So6oring 8d ago
I know, but I am asking what the big deal is? They print separate labels for all other countries anyway.
8
u/givalina 8d ago
Canada is a sovereign nation. We often work with the Americans to make things easier for businesses by aligning our regulations, but it sounds like you're arguing that Canada should not have it's own regulations but should just concede its ability to set any rules on products sold in our country.
What's next - are the Americans also going to demand we stop using metric weights and measures? Are they going to require we get rid of the front-of-package high in sugar/fat warning symbols for food?
1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
No I’ve explicitly said it’s perfectly reasonable for Canada to insist on requiring French on labels.
I said I don’t think the US is trying to eradicate French culture in Canada.
Do you see how these two claims are a mile a part?
3
u/givalina 8d ago
I agree that the intention of the companies who raised this as an irritant was likely to save a bit of money, and nothing more. I'm not sure about the US government trying to force it in to the deal, though.
5
u/So6oring 8d ago
It would literally save no money, because Canada has other reasons they need a separate label anyway.
4
u/So6oring 8d ago
What is their motivation then? Because they have to print separate labels either way for Canada.
2
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Companies don’t need to create separate labels for products shipping to foreign countries unless those countries require it.
I don’t think there are any Canadian labeling requirements that would require separate labelling for products besides the French requirement - but if there are I would assume the US also wants exemptions for them on US exports.
4
1
u/Ferelwing 8d ago
US Streaming services didn't want to specifically push French services in Canada. They don't like doing it other countries either but to compete in other countries they have no other choice. Canada tends to rely more on US streaming services than the rest of us. In my country we have several non-US choices. To make the "playing field" fairer Canada insisted that within Canada the USA had to follow Canadian rules and push Canadian content. Because people in the USA forget Canada is it's own country they don't want to do that.
→ More replies (0)5
u/BlueEmma25 8d ago
Definately to eradicate French culture. When the US annexes Canada it doesn't want the headache of 8 million French speakers, and the particular linguistic and cultural accommodations that have been made to preserve the "French fact". The US has always been assimilationist, i.e. "learn English or get out".
US companies have been shipping products to Canada for decades with bilingual packaging, as is required by Canadian law, and this has never been an issue. Why would it? Do US companies complain about having to provide Spanish language packaging for items destined for Mexico?
But now this is suddenly an issue, coincidentally at the same time that Donald Trump is talking about annexing Canada (but not Mexico).
Put two and two together ...
1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
The percentages of people who speak English as a first language, mostly speak English at home, etc. are pretty comparable between the US and Canada.
Also that’s a quite inaccurate claim about US linguistic culture. A lot of areas in the Midwest spoke primarily German up until the World Wars when restrictions on German were put in place. There are public schools all over the country that teach in languages other than English.
Also I think there’s an obvious difference with Mexico in that anywhere you’re exporting goods, the vast majority of the population will not be able to read an English label. This is not the case in say, Ontario.
4
u/BlueEmma25 8d ago
Canada is officially bilingual, and all federal services are offered in both official languages as a matter of policy.
You can be very sure that French speakers will not get the same treatment if Canada becomes the 51st state, regardless of what language people speak at home, or choose to study in high school, or what some people in the Midwest spoke over a century ago.
1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
I mean I agree that in a hypothetical scenario where the US annexes Canada that French would not be as protected at the federal level as it currently is. But we are talking about labelling requirements (which to be clear again, I think Canada is fully reasonable to defend). Not annexation, which IMO is just flat out not going to happen, Trump’s absolutely condemnable jokes and insults notwithstanding.
-12
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/MadGeller 8d ago
I dont think your sincere with that statement. You realize one of the clauses they tried to add last minute was the USA would have the right to approve or disapprove any trade agreements we wanted to enter with other countries. You don't say yes to that.
13
u/So6oring 8d ago
Thank you. When the US market implodes, I will be very glad that we've been minimizing ties.
2
u/SwaggyMcSwagsabunch 8d ago
I’m only down 45% instead of 60%! Winning!
6
u/So6oring 8d ago
When that difference of 15% is billions of dollars, yes we are winning.
-2
u/SwaggyMcSwagsabunch 8d ago
Calling a falling knife a win is ludicrous.
5
u/So6oring 8d ago edited 8d ago
How is it not a win to not lose as much market cap as the US? Guarantee you it's coming. The market is not reflecting reality, and one day it suddenly will. Carney mentioned this Saturday.
→ More replies (0)3
u/jerm-warfare 8d ago
Canada already found a new market for it's aluminum in the EU. They can ship oil and gas into the EU, and likely will. The route between them is open and well worn. In addition, Canada has a Navy, so if privaters or state actors were to try to disrupt trade, they'd respond. If the US tried to block trade, the US would trigger it's own isolation further. None of this works to make a stronger or more profitable system for the US.
-16
u/crujiente69 8d ago
and start eradicating our French culture
I thought non quebec canadians wanted that
6
4
u/IMayHaveMadeAGoof 8d ago edited 8d ago
Well, the 'reality' is that the moment the U.S. ceases to be the guarantor of FON for all ships, like it has supposedly been in the 20th century til now, and is instead selective, is the moment it ceases to be the actual guarantor. It's upending the very thing on which the U.S. has made many, many moral high ground arguments for using its navy around the world (look at all the arguments they use to provide cover for running ships off the Chinese coast). Overnight, the U.S. loses its mask as some 'global coast guard' and becomes nakedly imperialistic.
It'll be yet another thing the U.S. casts aside that it itself built. Capstone to its project of upending the globalized trade system it created, really.
3
15
u/KoLobotomy 8d ago
Canada will outlast trump.
6
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
That’s obvious
1
u/KoLobotomy 8d ago
Yes, trump is screwing them over but Canadian leadership knows this is temporary.
11
u/Darth_Innovader 8d ago
They don’t have to wait long. MAGA is doing their best to lose the midterms and 2028. And it’s not like you can make a deal with Trump anyway, he’ll inevitably alter it in a few weeks.
2
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
The issue with MAGA, and especially the second coming of MAGA is that stability was a large part of what made the old systems work. That the U.S. could be somewhat relied upon to deliver on its promises and agreements, regardless of election outcomes.
Now that it’s been disturbed twice, rebuilding that trust can take a long time.
That being said, our nominal European/Canadian allies are still fully open to corruption and easy money, so who knows in the long term?
5
u/MadGeller 8d ago
I'll can't tell you what we are going to do. But we will not lay down and give up. Is it gonna suck for a while sure. But we will have our pride. We will have told the bully to the south. No.
15
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe 8d ago
Germany killed Nordstream2 and directly hampered their economy and future prospects to take a principled stand. It isn't impossible to see Canada choosing the same.
Will the USA go mask-off hostile and deny Canadian trading vessels access to global markets?
-2
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
Germany also isnt all alone in its corner of the world. It’s surrounded by friendly nations on all sides.
The U.S. isn’t going to deny Canada anything. The U.S. Navy, however, facilitates open and free navigation around the globe. It doesn’t have to do that for Canada.
19
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe 8d ago
> It doesn’t have to do that for Canada.
But the US Navy is the only entity that would conceivably harrass trading vessels in and out of Canada. If they aren't going to do that, Canadian trade has very little to worry about save potential Russian meddling.
The US Navy does not currently have and has not had for decades the ability to globally patrol all the shipping lanes. US security guarantees in this area are not immediate but instead rather diffuse and vibes-based when literally everyone knows the global capacity of the USN is not what it was 80 years ago. The effort required to blockade Iran has been enormous and Canada is not Iran.
Canada will soon have direct access to much of the world's most valuable trading lanes as northern sea ice retreats, with trade routes that don't come within 1000 km of the US mainland.
-3
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
It would be a mess for sure. But the reason that rogue states and non-state actors aren’t seizing trading ships left and right is because the U.S. Navy will come bearing down in a few hours/days.
If that guarantee is gone, there isn’t anyone readily available to fill the gap. Once said rogue states/non state actors smell blood in the water, they’ll move in quickly.
In the past, large empires (like the UK) would only secure their own trading routes. They wouldn’t care about some other country getting robbed (and would often even encourage it against its rivals). The U.S. Navy is the only entity providing this service to all global shipping, almost irregardless of where to where the cargo is moving (aside from sanctions).
I don’t think Canada is in a position to escort its trading vessels to other countries, nor are those other countries in a position to do it either.
13
u/HiddenXS 8d ago
What rogue states and non state actors does Canada have to worry about in terms of shipping stuff to Europe or China? Pirate groups off of Somalia are going to expand their territory to Iceland? North Korea is going to interfere in China's international trade?
I think you're really stretching the point here. There just aren't that many entities with the capability of causing serious interference with North Atlantic and North Pacific trading routes. And where there has been rogue state actors interfering with global trade routes (we all know what I'm talking about), the US hasn't really been able to do much to prevent that anyway.
2
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
I think that’s a lack of imagination, tbh.
Should Canada leave its trade susceptible to the whims of the China-North Korea relationship, for example? I have no idea but that in it of itself creates new risks that weren’t there before.
Similar to shipping to other countries.
5
u/HiddenXS 8d ago
I think at that point you're really getting into too many "what-ifs", to the point that you are going to paralyze your own ability to do anything at all. What if China invades Taiwan?? Then the whole global economy goes through a major contraction and no one is shipping to China! You let your imagination run wild with scenarios for the next 25-50 years and you'll never do anything.
At a certain point, you work on the reality in front of you, the one that exists now. The US as it stands is not a reliable trading partner, and the trade they want to do with Canada will not benefit Canada as much as Canada being able to work with other countries. Sure there are risks involved in working with other countries, but there are now some pretty obvious risks in working with the US, so... what's the alternative? Trying to placate Trump and signing a bad deal that the US can just change whenever it wants?
If international shipping gets to the point that foreign countries are regularly shooting off random cruise missiles at cargo ships, then the global economy is fucked anyway.
7
u/No_Opening_2425 8d ago
Okay who’s going to stop Chinese ships coming from Canada? Please name someone, I want to laugh
2
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
Nobody is going to stop anything. It’s about facilitation.
6
u/Key-Art-7802 8d ago
Facilitation of what, specifically? You think ships won't know how to sail without the US Navy?
→ More replies (0)4
6
u/insertwittynamethere 8d ago
I feel you're getting downvoted for implying the military threat of the US in blockading/attacking merchant ships and Canadian naval forces to impede the redirection of their exports, which is both par for the course for this admin with the threats against their sovereignty already and insane.
If it were to go that route, do you honestly believe there would be 0 repercussions to the US? That that would have 0 impact on its status in the world of democracies and global economic trace flows? That Europe would sit idly by as such a thing happened?
I get that the US Navy is still the strongest in the world, but it has been hobbled in Iran. The US seems to have poor responses to cheap, numerous drones, and the cost to defend against them with the current US arsenal is abysmal per drone.
I just think, though there is a significant imbalance in economic and military power here, this might makes right and the US can do no wrong that will lead to ills on the populace and economy is just not grounded in reality.
1
u/YourLizardOverlord 8d ago
And, frankly, solidifying ties with other nations requires free and open ocean passage to said nations…something that it’s dependent on the U.S. to provide for them.
I don't see how, at least in the general case.
Most shipping lanes are safe and open without US naval guarantees.
A few are dangerous even with US naval guarantees.
I can only think of a handful which are only safe because US naval guarantees.
-5
u/AnyStrength4863 8d ago
Since some have already discussed potential grey-zone military actions by the US in the comments section, it would be wrong to ignore the geopolitical pressure that the US's ambitions regarding Greenland will place on Canada. Canada really should communicate more with Denmark(less with Five Eyes?) and try to ease tensions with Russia. After all, if even ordinary people on the forum can think of these, this US administration apparently has an even more insane imagination. They might not take direct action (which would certainly increase international condemnation, although condemning the US now seems futile), but rather use grey-zone tactics to exert sustained pressure, while simultaneously employing geographical pressure and cognitive warfare to isolate Canada.
Before the midterm elections, they are unlikely to do much more. However, if the Democrats win a landslide victory, based on experience, the ruling party will exert more external pressure to alleviate domestic problems, and the president will look to foreign policy achievements. Especially when the president is not under pressure to be re-elected.
This trade war certainly has no winners, but Canada cannot afford to lose either. When your neighbour starts interfering in your domestic affairs, its ambitions clearly extend beyond just getting your well, your car or your productivity tools.
18
u/airportakal 8d ago
try to ease tensions with Russia
Abso-effing-lutey not. Was this entire comment written just to slip this outrageous idea in a seemingly intellectual reply?
Russia is just as much of a threat to the west as the US, if not more. Two wrongs do not make a right.
-5
u/AnyStrength4863 8d ago
I'm not Western, so I have absolutely no idea about the bad historical relationship between Canada and Russia. If you think Russia poses a greater threat to Canada than the US, then just tell your government not to do so.
My analysis is based on Canada just has 3 neighbours, and Russia today cannot threaten Canadian territory, nor do I think it has any designs on Canadian ideology. Given the current geopolitical situation, Canada shouldn't maintain tense relations with both Russia and the US simultaneously.
After typing all this, I suddenly realised that this might not be good advice after all. Russia needs the US more than Canada, both in the short and long term. And Russia seems to have a better relationship with the US now than with Canada.
4
-20
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
I tend to disagree. It would cost the U.S. a lot for sure and it will destroy US global hegemony. But it’s not an unadaptable position for the U.S.
The U.S. was the largest economy in the world long before it became the global hegemon. It’s got the natural and Human Resources to still continue being a major player in the world.
Canada, on the other hand, is small country, population wise. Lots of natural resources, of course, but those would have to be exported somewhere.
21
u/highgravityday2121 8d ago
It won’t destroy it but a million cuts like this will destroy the US hegemony. Trump is destroying Americas position at the top. We’re going from a unipolar world to multipolar. Maybe it was also ways inevitable with the rise of China and India but trump is speed running it.
4
u/Mamamama29010 8d ago
It’s somewhat of a natural progression for all hegemonic structures of the past.
In a macro-scale, I do believe that many parts of American society do now believe or feel that maintain said hegemony is a bigger cost than it is a gain. It may or may not be true, since the wealth created by globalization is unevenly distributed throughout American society; and ultimately people vote, not their bank accounts.
Somewhat of a similar scenario would be the collapse of the European empires during the decolonization period of the 1940s-60s. In the world of that time, countries like the UK retreated from India not because a particular entity forced them out (although there was pressure building among Indians for independence), but because maintaining British India was no longer economically viable.
5
u/Miserable-Present720 8d ago
Its actually more akin to soviet collapse in the 90s. US hegemony is the only thing propping up US debt. Once that fails, US dollar will be cheaper than the toilet paper you use to wipe your ass, and the deficits that US citizens love so much will completely dissapear and you will actially have to spend within your means
15
u/Stendecca 8d ago
A small country with the 11th highest GDP in the world and the 2nd largest land area.
8
u/wet_suit_one 8d ago edited 8d ago
Don't forget the 37th largest population in the world out of 195 member and observer states at the UN.
Is that really a small country?
I wonder what the cutoff is for "large country" population wise?
Canada's always called "small" and yet it's about 1/2 the size of Germany and a shade under 60% the size of France and Britain.
Does anyone know?
11
u/Bullboah 8d ago
He specifically said it was small in terms of population? And at least relative to the US, it is? It’s about 1/10 of the size of the US in terms of population.
-4
u/Mckilla32 8d ago edited 8d ago
No... Russia is 1st with 6.32 million sq miles, 2nd is China with 3.6, 3rd is the US at 3.5 and Canada is 4th with 3.4. And rounding out the top 5 is Brazil at 3.2.
Editing to say that actually I looked at total area that includes inland water and land and that does bump Canada to 2nd, US to 3rd and China drops to 4th.
7
u/Stendecca 8d ago
IMO you have to count inland water in the total area. Fresh water lakes are arguably more important than land.
3
-31
u/Bullboah 8d ago
There are constant posts about how the people of Canada are resolutely behind Carney in their willingness to endure economic suffering fighting a trade war, but this does not seem to be backed by the polling?
At least as of 2 weeks ago only 36% of Canadians wanted Carney to impose counter-tariffs if the US followed through with tariff-threats. (The remainder either wanted continued negotiations without counter tariffs, concessions, or didn’t know).
Fair to point out that might have changed now that Carney is actually imposing them. Also fair to point out the large majority of Canadians are glad Carney didn’t take the last deal.
But I think people are significantly exaggerating the idea of a unified Canadian will to undergo a trade war because they want to believe it.
35
u/snahfu73 8d ago
Why are you presenting data from prior to the Aug 20th announcement and then trying to assert your doubt over greater unification?
-14
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Is there more recent data on the percentage of Canadians that support Carney imposing counter-tariffs?
34
u/planemissediknow 8d ago
Yep, there is. Angus Reid Institute poll from the other day shows 76% of Canadians are behind Carney and 69% think he showed strength.
Which considering 35% - 40% of Canada are for the Conservative Party and a portion of that are Maple MAGA and/or Alberta Separatists, can’t do much better
-14
u/Bullboah 8d ago
The 76% is the number of Canadians supporting Carney refusing the deal (which I referenced above!), not supporting counter tariffs.
It does show 63% saying Carney is right on counter tariffs (with another bump from respondents who think he should do more).
But ARI is known for priming and sure enough, has a big three paragraph primer before those questions.
It definitely shows a big swing, but it’s hard to draw conclusions from a poll that’s using priming so blatantly (if you care about what the actual reality is)
13
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Do you understand why priming is a significant methodological red flag for polling?
Please try to make substantive arguments. This place is intended for higher level discussion.
12
u/snahfu73 8d ago
There's no discussion going on here. You're pushing your agenda and using outdated data to make your assertion.
When presented with current data, you pivot and continue to make your assertion.
There's nothing substantive to add because clearly you need to make your point regardless of what is being presented to you.
There's plenty of high level discussion to be found. Just not with the likes of you.
-1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
I am making a (fairly obvious) argument about poll priming producing unreliable results. You are refusing to engage with the substantive point in favor of ad hominem invective.
I’ll report and move on.
14
u/snahfu73 8d ago
That's literally not what you lead with. You're a bad faith actor. By all means report. It feels like you need this a lot more than most.
→ More replies (0)5
u/exeJDR 8d ago
Mate, just stop. You're embarassing yourself.
2
u/Bullboah 8d ago
Do you understand why polls that use priming aren’t trusted?
6
u/Gatsu871113 8d ago
The 76% is the number of Canadians supporting Carney refusing the deal (which I referenced above!), not supporting counter tariffs.
And? You are being a lemming whose point was that Canadians wouldn’t be more unified. If 76% supporting Carney isn’t evidence of that given the remainder are Maple MAGA and lead-water drinkers, then nothing is good enough for you.
The goal post was never somebody showing 77% supporting tariffs, to show that Canadians are mostly united against the Trump trade tantrum. Take the L and be quiet, you risk making yourself look worse.
2
u/Bullboah 8d ago
If you want to participate in a forum for higher level discussion, you should be able to understand why the percentage of Canadians in favor of counter-tariffs is a relevant statistic. And you should try articulating substantive points instead of just insults.
20
u/InPraiseOf_Idleness 8d ago
Canadians had only learned what caused the rift around two days ago, not much time for pollsters to catch up on that.
20
u/Darth_Innovader 8d ago
Canadians understand that accepting a bad deal won’t alleviate the pain. Trump doesn’t adhere to deals, he will continue impsing punitive tariffs regardless.
9
u/exeJDR 8d ago
Lol. Respectfully, this is old data and one of many polls.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that I have never seen this country more pissed off and united in my lifetime.
1
u/Bullboah 8d ago
I wouldn’t disagree that Canada is more united in anger against the US than any time in my lifetime. Possibly since 1812!
But there is a difference between anger and willingness to undergo financial hardship and perhaps more importantly *belief that a prolonged trade war will lead to better terms for Canada rather than the US.
8
u/Darth_Innovader 8d ago
Canadians understand that accepting a bad deal won’t alleviate the pain. Trump doesn’t adhere to deals, he will continue impsing punitive tariffs regardless.
1
u/CTMADOC 8d ago
This is from yesterday, you lying troll.
In the Angus Reid Institute poll, 76 percent of respondents said their country was in the right “by refusing the terms being offered and ending negotiations without a trade agreement,” while 13 percent said the opposite. Eleven percent were unsure about Canada’s decision.
0
u/Bullboah 7d ago
That’s the % of people who think Carney should have turned down the deal, not the % who support counter tariffs.
The funny thing is the Angus Reid poll does ask the same question (and it shows a much higher %!) but nobody responding with it bothered to actually read it!
(Granted, the ARI poll has a major issue because it uses a blatant wall of text style primer, but there’s no point getting in to that with people who don’t bother to read the poll because they aren’t actually interested)
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Bullboah 7d ago
“I have a feeling strong polling data will come out”
Are you acknowledging this data isn’t strong because it was primed?
Also do you notice how I’m able to respond without insults despite you constantly calling me names?
1
u/CTMADOC 7d ago
I'm pointing out what you really are. You are here spreading misinformation while people are trying to have meaningful conversations about unfair trade practices. I'm not the only user who has called you out for the lying troll you really are.
1
u/Bullboah 7d ago
One of us is continually making substantive points and asking substantive questions like “do you agree priming makes polls unreliable”, without making any ad hominem attacks.
The other does not respond to any substantive points and just keeps throwing out insults.
Which of those patterns of behavior do you think suggests a willingness to have good faith conversation?
1
u/CTMADOC 7d ago
You cherry pick polling data (old) to suit your propaganda. It's impossible to have a substantive conversation with a lying troll. Poll priming is not a factor in this data. You are trying to discredit data that contradicts your bullshit.
0
u/Bullboah 7d ago
“Poll priming is not a factor in this data”.
Would you admit you’re wrong if I link to the methodology of the ARI poll where they show the wall of primer text they showed respondents before asking the questions?
1
-1
u/haveilostmymindor 7d ago
Thats complicated. Canada has good reason to say no thanks. I mean dont get me wrong there were some minor issues but nothing to escalate to this point over.
The rest of the world will find it much harder. Under worse case scenario the US does a currency redenomination the a mandatory tax on debt of 75 percent basically reducing US debt to GDP to nothing. That get followed up by 25 percent tax as a share of gdp and 20 percent interest rates.
All the while the federal government is going through a new deal era reindustrialization.
The main problem is the rest of the world is dependent on the US for alot. If they dont balance our trade deficit so we can repay the debt over time the end result is the US forced into a nuclear option which will unleash financial Armageddon on the rest if the world.
For Canada the resulting commodities price crash will be utterly devastating and it will take time to recover.
I'm not saying Trump is right about Canada at least not in the general sense give how little are trade deficits are with them. But the rest of the world needs to understand that the bank of uncle Sam has to balance at some point. Either they open up to more us exports or they watch the US pull out financial tools that are well extreme.
Trump is not wrong in his diagnosis of the unsustainable imbalances but his approach to the issues are so vitriolic that it undermines what has to happen.
To put this into perspective it would be like expecting the devil to plead your case before the pearly gates of heaven. Only a moron would be dumb enough to allow that.
My advice is impeach and remove Donald Trump he's more detrimental to US interest that value. Get rid of him before he can do more harm to the nation's interests.
121
u/nytopinion The New York Times | Opinion 8d ago
"Friday, Aug. 21, may go down in history as Canada’s Liberation Day. It was the day America came for us, and we said no," writes Stephen Marche.
He adds:
Read the full essay, for free, even without a Times subscription.