Профиль

I also worry about whether there is a hidden divide between policymakers and public opinion that regards the U.S. as a threat, and those in institutions used to seeing Americans as colleagues which dismiss the whole thing as hysteria to be cynically used to get funding from the rubes who believe it.

I can maybe understand the underlying logic if gaps in the Canadian supply chain or pressure to keep up with Five Eyes partners on tech mean no Canadian alternatives are to be had in some areas, but it’s not great for sovereignty and data security either way.

Canada's newfound focus on defence investments is great news for the national cyberspying and cyberdefence agency, according to internal documents. Also, it shouldn't have to buy from Canadian suppliers. thelogic.co/news/cse-buy...

A family friend once ran into one of the Wall Street guys who was on the U.S. negotiating team for CUSMA opposite Freeland. He and his fellows were still laughing at misogynistic jokes about her years later. It’s unsurprising that she‘s able to so clearly diagnose the deeper ugliness at play here.

An interesting article from Renew Canada discussing the challenges, requirements and opportunities around Canada’s fairly massive Arctic defence infrastructure program.

so I just want to emphasize something here that non-media people might not pick up on: Marisa is an independent journalist and is taking on the risk of being sued by Moraff here without any institutional backing. That's admirable bravery - and also means being very, very certain of the facts.

We've already seen arm-twisting to follow the American model in NORAD with pressure to participate in Golden Dome. The question of what to do about an already disliked neighbor acquiring a nuclear dagger pointed at America's heart is different from whether Zelensky can charm Trump on any given day.

Because a deterrent, especially a sovereign deterrent, simply would not have the architecture, the missiles or the other legs of a triad to fight a nuclear war with the DPRK and Iran. Canada's historical contribution to North American defence has always been NORAD. Nukes are America's alone.

A Canadian nuclear weapon would also fatally threaten the drive to create a Fortress North America (or as Hegseth called it in March, Greater North America) where the US is able to box in its neighbors and control their economies, resources etc. under the guise of collective security.

It is hard to imagine a more serious break from reliance on America than attempting to jump-start your own nuclear umbrella. And while this White House may in the abstract like more nukes pointed at Iran and NK, the Canadian deterrent could in no way be framed as a response to those threats.

When Trump and co. say they want allies to spend more, their revealed preference is that they want allies to buy more American armaments and systems and more Anduril gizmos. Any time rearmament takes the form of being less in hock to US firms and DC, the reaction has been strongly negative.

To this- I genuinely don't think the evidence supports this when we look at how the Trump White House has treated actually existing efforts by NATO members to increase defence spending. Colby was literally complaining about allies diversifying last week.

I have repeatedly tried to convince normal people there's a major crisis brewing in the Sahel, but no one cares because "it's Africa". I wrote about the April attacks earlier this year, but English language coverage of this basically non-existent. Except for those like @saladinaldronni.bsky.social

My therapist of all people believes in this

Because the juntas are in power and are both unbelievably bloody handed and totally inept, direct action in the Sahel itself is probably a wash, but that would demand forward looking investment in the security and stability of the neighbouring states, and we've only just now remembered Mali exists.

The Sahel is among my worst case scenarios for any kind of intervention for precisely this reason, because the triumvirate of juntas are incompetent but great at performative butchery and the only other white men within 300 miles will be Wagnerites who are technically fighting the same enemy.

Not least because AQ and IS have extensively written about and acted upon the need to "Manage savage chaos" and win popular support through providing alternative governance, which is a hell of a lot more enticing than life in a void of instability with occasional visits from pipe-hitter operators.

My ire is more directed at those who somehow think that you can neatly separate counterterrorism from COIN or COIN from nation-building or at least some investment in governance and stability. Trying to do so basically amounts to a global "mowing the grass" strategy and will end just as badly.

This probably comes across as a defence of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is not, both operations were badly planned and wrong-headed which is in no small part why they entered a cycle of bloody failure. I can also accept the argument that if nation building requires all this, we just shouldn't do it.

The fact that the Coalition banged its head against a wall for 20 years and produced no result is not because we tried everything we possibly could, but rather because of a leadership culture of careerism, short-termism, and constant lying and deflection of blame which was never actually punished.