This is not for military defense against the US. All the investment is focused on the Arctic and on deepening military alliance with Arctic states and states that border Russia.

Which border do we share with the US? Any hardening of that? Nope.

We are basically all-in on supporting the US defense strategy. We are part of the team to face Russia so the US can focus on China. Also, we are basically investing in defense infrastructure to provide security for the resource supply chain between our far north and the US.

We may not love them right now, but we’re still team USA. We are still basically a resource colony, and we are doing as the empire’s strategy demands of us.

I remember when Francesca Albanese was interviewed on Front Burner, Jayme Poisson seemed likely sympathetic to Albanese’s arguments but was dealing with clear lines that had been set for her not to cross and canned phrases that had to be inserted presenting Israel’s narrative. It was awful. That was November of last year and at that time it seemed she was pushing CBC limits just by having Albanese as a guest.

The National cleary pushed the Israeli narrative for a long time, even regularly having Israeli spokespeople on to push their narrative while having no Palestinian representation. They have improved on that now, when it has become completely untenable to deny the horror of what’s being done, but they seem to have been dragged there against their will.

Good. The CBC has been biased on this. Only recently have they started more openly sharing critical views, but for most of the time this has been going on there was a strong pro-Israel bias. Even now, they are very cautious on the national programming about how they describe it. Compare it to how the situation with Ukraine and Russia is covered and the contrast is stark. The CBC is capable of putting blame on a party and making stark accusations of brutality of intent, but they’re still very cautious about Israel.

Carney is restrained by the decision space he has to work within. When this kicked off, Carney looked to the UK and to Europe for support. The UK and Europe have both caved. Also, look at what’s happening in Alberta. The US has a long history of executing regime change in democratic allies by fomenting internal conflict. I have no doubt Carney is feeling the pressure from that as well. The reality is simply that Canada is pretty stuck. Carney’s government has at least made moves to diversify, but he’s leading a country without anyone to turn to for help, with an information and media system that’s basically controlled by US entities, and that’s under threat of serious disruption to internal stability by a country known for regime change efforts.

To my eyes, he’s pretty screwed.

deleted by creator

Men must really have weak hands, feet, eyes, and skulls compared to women, and be much harder to see. Sounds rough.

The Hunka thing was legitimately dumb and embarrassing, but not close to being on the same scale as the US treatment of Netanyahu.

Have people forgotten another wanted criminal getting 50+ standing ovations in Congress not long ago? On a scale of how America honours war criminals, a red carpet in Alaska seems relatively minor in comparison.

I’ve signed up, and would be happy to see it succeed. Canada desperately needs a popular off-ramp from US-owned social media. They have a long way to go to become that, and a lot to prove along the way in trying to offer Canadians something better than what’s out there, but there has never been a better time to try.

The CIA and the US defense industry worm their way into everyone’s business, especially so-called allies. I have very little faith in either CAF or CSIS to operate free of US influence.

Sad to say this, but we are still very much in the fold of the empire. The US has an explicit strategy of division of labour for conflict with Russia and China, and we are alongside Europe in the division against Russia. Just look at what we are actually doing. Our defense investment isn’t to harden our southern border. It’s to harden our northern border, facing Russia. We, as the public, are being played. US strategy documents last year laid out the need to apply pressure to create urgency among allies to reindustrialize their military industries, spend more on arms, and for those surrounding Russia to step up and shoulder the burden of facing them so the US can focus on China. This year we see the 5% NATO target demanded by the US accepted, a major bump in Canadian defense spending for the arctic (but not to defend against the US), and increased Canada-Europe collaboration on defense industry as NATO now talks about a two-front war with Russia and China. So, our defense officials won’t be evaluating purchases based on conflict against the US. They’ll be evaluating based on our integration with US systems as part of the larger strategic direction.

I want those in Gaza to get all the support they can to survive this and I’m glad for them to get something rather than nothing from Canada, but I also see this as primarily just performative face-saving from Canada. We aren’t doing anything like as much as we could to apply pressure. Instead, we’re taking minor actions that won’t actually apply much pressure or change the course of Israeli plans while making us look humane. It’s government trying to relieve a bit of public pressure and maintain international image while not doing anything to really rock the boat.

I don’t think this was boycott dependent. The separatist movement in Alberta made sure they saw this opportunity.

That’s just not practical for a lot of businesses. Offloading the capex, operational costs and other hassles to a service provider makes a lot of sense for most companies.

I guess Carney was getting too much attention as “the Trump whisperer” for his ego to handle, so he wants to punish Canada and put Carney back in his place as he sees it.

I kind of suspected we would see something like this after seeing so much in media about Carney’s success in managing the Trump relationship.

The US isn’t leaving NATO. The US just got everything it wanted from NATO, and they still hold massive sway over the alliance. This was just another threat to put fear into the public and the leaders of NATO states so they would pay more money. That’s Trump’s main focus. He wants other people to pay for what suits the US instead of the US doing so.

It’s very much all happening at Trump’s behest. The idea that Trump is an actual threat to NATO is silly. Why would he push NATO countries to increase their defense spending target by 150% if he was planning on actually invading? He is very pleased with a more militarized NATO. He just used fear to motivate the public in NATO countries to open their wallets for more defense spending so the US can concentrate their resources on China. He scared and bullied NATO countries into doing what he wanted.

Trump is the one who pushed for it in the first place! It was his idea. This is all driven by the US. Trump pushed NATO to a 5% target and Hegseth pushed Europe to reindustrialize their defense industry. There’s no way NATO was going to a 5% target if not for Trump. It’s entirely because he wants it.

5% on defense spending is a lot. Really a lot. By the time it reaches 5% in 2035, that’s going to be at least $3.5 trillion per year spent by NATO.

That’s insane.

Also, how much of the infrastructure that gets built is going to be publicly owned and see revenues from their use flow back into public coffers? Are we going to drop tens of billions into infrastructure for rare earth mining only to see the mining companies reap all the benefits?

I am very, very skeptical of all this.

Tbh, my cynical read of this is that it looks a lot more like the West preparing for war under US guidance. BRICS+ has surpassed the G7 in GDP, the center of world economy is now moving to Asia, and China is about to leave the US in its dust economically. That will all happen without any need for war, just based on continued economic development under peaceful conditions. War would be the main thing that could disrupt that and military power is a main advantage the US still has over the competition. The US is already waging economic war on China, and Hegseth has been open about wanting Europe to spend more on their own defense so the US can square off against China. To me, it looks like the Western-led order with the old Western colonial powers dumping a tonne of money into military power so they can disrupt the transition of power to the emerging powers from the Global South and make a last ditch effort to hold on to the world order that’s kept them on top for the last few hundred years.

I would rather a regulatory and subsidization approach direct aimed at targeting the high-value segments of package delivery currently making money for private competitors. Build a business plan to go head-to-head with them on their most profitable market share, but with support of the federal government. Become more sustainable by taking the profits away from UPS and FedEx.