7 ms·

They are willing to bear some pain in order to hit back at the US administration. And they're pretty united - Doug Ford for instance is not on the same team as

by davidw 21d ago

They are willing to bear some pain in order to hit back at the US administration. And they're pretty united - Doug Ford for instance is not on the same team as Mark Carney - but has been very vocal about striking back. It's really a singular achievement to piss off such a good neighbor so badly.

epolanski 21d ago
And don't forget the Greenland threats, those for us Europeans, and in European foreign affairs are a line of non return. Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage, because what was exposed really is that the US system allows for each administration to destroy and 180 whatever the previous one did.
- ericmay 21d ago
  They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do - that's the chain of reasoning that this theory of unrepairable relations sends us down. But we've had challenges and issues before. The US has tried to obtain Greenland in the past. There are plenty of examples of such things throughout history ranging from the Suez Crises, to French withdrawal from NATO, to, well, 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten. We sometimes think that things in the moment are perhaps more important than they are. The news wants us to believe the world is ending to get clicks. Europe still lets Russian tourists in and houses Russian billionaires and their families despite this existential threat from Russia, as an example.
  - epolanski 21d ago
    The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy. As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value. Business and friendship is built on long term horizons of stability. If that's not possible, we can only adapt.
    - ericmay 21d ago
      > The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. No but they're getting you to click on every article where Trump is SLAMMED and Marcon is TOASTED and Canada RETALIATES or whatever. > As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value. That's not true and nobody has ever really treated it as such. The entire history of the United States has pretty much operated by making changes every 4 years. I'm not sure the US has really executed 180 degree turns, but even so sometimes it's necessary to make abrupt changes because acting too slowly could be very dangerous. For whatever it's worth I'd hate to see Donald Trump elected to, idk, some 20-year term as president in the name of not making changes every 4 years. Aside from that, this cuts both ways. You can't throw everything away after decades of helpful, and peaceful cooperation just because of 8 out of 12 years being annoying. There is no stability in that - it's just "agree with me or I go away" which isn't good for long-term relationships. > In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy. To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States. Other countries may not like our actions, but suggesting that US action == destabilization implies that any action that any entity takes is also destabilizing. Things don't happen in a vacuum.
      - bdangubic 21d ago
        > To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States. We most certainly do not, the system is just nicely setup to make us believe that this is the case. In 2020 for instance, we were given an amazing choice to choose between a senile grandpa and the most vile and corrupt human being ever to walk the earth. all us elections boil down to this, the establishment decides who their 'best one' is at any given time and you get to choose A vs. B. there isn't a single other country on the planet where this is the case that calls itself a democracy. it is one step removed from china and russia, we just get one more choice than they do :)
        ericmay 21d ago
  - dinfinity 21d ago
    > They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do That is a very black and white view of the world. There is actually a very large area between acting as a close ally and acting as an imperialistic adversary. GP is saying that the close ally bit is out the door. I think we can become close allies again if the situation requires it, but definitely won't if it does not. The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable. > 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten. With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians.
    - ericmay 21d ago
      > That is a very black and white view of the world. > The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable. Right, black and white haha. Well if we are highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable why would we do anything besides whatever we decide to do? Can’t trust us, can’t reason with us, and can’t rely on us. In that case, who gives a shit about alliances with Europe? > With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians. European wars started by Europeans. The Japanese may well have bombed Pearl Harbor anyway (don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought) but that war takes on a whole different character if simultaneously all the European powers weren’t initiating another round of their petulant and childish wars.
      - marcus_holmes 21d ago
        > don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought Let's not forget the Soviet Union, who did most of the actual heavy lifting of liberating Western Europe. If D-Day had never happened, the Soviets would have rolled right through Germany and then occupied France and the low countries. The Nazis would still have lost, but all of continental Europe would have been behind the iron curtain for the Cold War. The anglosphere allies didn't defeat Germany so much as stop the Soviets from occupying Western Europe.
  - SpicyLemonZest 21d ago
    We're talking about different things. The French withdrawal from NATO unified command is a good example of what it means to say relationships can't just be repaired; it took 43 years to bring them back! It's true that the news can overstate just how much things have changed. The US and Canada remain major trade partners and strong allies, with NORAD currently in the middle of a week-long joint exercise, and it's unlikely that's going to change. But you should not expect a return to friendly trade relations in 2029.
    - ericmay 21d ago
      But they can be repaired. The OP claimed: > Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage So if you disagree with them you should reply to them and let them know the damage can be repaired.
      - SpicyLemonZest 21d ago
        Again, we're talking about different things. What the OP understands "repair the damage" to mean, which I know because I've seen the expectation myself in the wild, is that the next administration can restore the 2024 status quo by just going on a really compelling apology tour. I don't think that's likely; we're still going to see Canadians boycotting random consumer goods, Europeans demanding that everyone should move off American tech ASAP, and countries in general being a lot less willing to negotiate for trade agreements the Americans can't credibly promise to keep.
        ericmay 20d ago
        Their lack of specificity does not invalidate my comment. > and countries in general being a lot less willing to negotiate for trade agreements the Americans can't credibly promise to keep. We have a lot of trade deals and have created new ones while Trump has been in office. Countries have willingly negotiated with us and us with them. What you are writing is ideological wishful thinking, not what is reflected in reality.
        20d ago
  - ncphillips 21d ago
    They can be repaired but it is going to require a very significant amount of work on one side of the border in particular.
  - ben_w 20d ago
    > They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do - that's the chain of reasoning that this theory of unrepairable relations sends us down. Irreparable doesn't make it a good idea to increase the damage, in much the same way that a company losing their trademark ("irreparable harm") can have an even worse time if all their banks suddenly refuse to do business with them. The US taking Greenland by force means either NATO ends, or it collectively is at war with the USA, either outcome within a week or less. Similar but with different timelines for the entire EU due to Article 42(7), even though not all EU member states are in NATO and vice versa. It means maximally escalating trade prohibition (which doesn't mean everything from day 0) rather than simply the absence of deals leading to tariffs. I will note with Suez, the British and French were humiliated, and by some the crisis is considered to be the end of the British empire. The British are not exactly beloved world-wide, despite what British newspapers will write about all the asylum seekers. And the French didn't fully withdraw from NATO, but from the US-led unified command and the control of NATO's nuclear arsenal, to approximately quote the Wikipedia page. Neither world war worked out well for those involved; for the British it was two Pyrrhic victories in a lifetime, for Germany it was humiliation and hyperinflation the first time around and getting quartered the second time around with active economic suppression only ending because of a proxy conflict of brain drain across what became the Iron Curtain. In both wars, Germany was seen as villainous for the next generation. The relative economic damage in Europe is what allowed the USA to become a superpower, and it only really supported Europe as a foil against Communism. Or just look at how much the borders changed going from pre-WW1 to post-WW2.
singpolyma3 21d ago
And yet were still selling power to USA. Ford lost his right to an opinion when he decided to make noise about "Fighting" but refuses to do the only thing that could cause trouble
ncphillips 21d ago
People I know change their meal plans if the only options are US products.

by davidw 21d ago

epolanski 21d ago

And don't forget the Greenland threats, those for us Europeans, and in European foreign affairs are a line of non return. Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage, because what was exposed really is that the US system allows for each administration to destroy and 180 whatever the previous one did.

ericmay 21d ago
They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do - that's the chain of reasoning that this theory of unrepairable relations sends us down. But we've had challenges and issues before. The US has tried to obtain Greenland in the past. There are plenty of examples of such things throughout history ranging from the Suez Crises, to French withdrawal from NATO, to, well, 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten. We sometimes think that things in the moment are perhaps more important than they are. The news wants us to believe the world is ending to get clicks. Europe still lets Russian tourists in and houses Russian billionaires and their families despite this existential threat from Russia, as an example.
- epolanski 21d ago
  The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy. As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value. Business and friendship is built on long term horizons of stability. If that's not possible, we can only adapt.
  - ericmay 21d ago
    > The news isn't threatening allies, offending/mocking them, charging tariffs, subverting the very institutions that have been built together. A human in charge is. No but they're getting you to click on every article where Trump is SLAMMED and Marcon is TOASTED and Canada RETALIATES or whatever. > As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value. That's not true and nobody has ever really treated it as such. The entire history of the United States has pretty much operated by making changes every 4 years. I'm not sure the US has really executed 180 degree turns, but even so sometimes it's necessary to make abrupt changes because acting too slowly could be very dangerous. For whatever it's worth I'd hate to see Donald Trump elected to, idk, some 20-year term as president in the name of not making changes every 4 years. Aside from that, this cuts both ways. You can't throw everything away after decades of helpful, and peaceful cooperation just because of 8 out of 12 years being annoying. There is no stability in that - it's just "agree with me or I go away" which isn't good for long-term relationships. > In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy. To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States. Other countries may not like our actions, but suggesting that US action == destabilization implies that any action that any entity takes is also destabilizing. Things don't happen in a vacuum.
    - bdangubic 21d ago
      > To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States. We most certainly do not, the system is just nicely setup to make us believe that this is the case. In 2020 for instance, we were given an amazing choice to choose between a senile grandpa and the most vile and corrupt human being ever to walk the earth. all us elections boil down to this, the establishment decides who their 'best one' is at any given time and you get to choose A vs. B. there isn't a single other country on the planet where this is the case that calls itself a democracy. it is one step removed from china and russia, we just get one more choice than they do :)
      - ericmay 21d ago
- dinfinity 21d ago
  > They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do That is a very black and white view of the world. There is actually a very large area between acting as a close ally and acting as an imperialistic adversary. GP is saying that the close ally bit is out the door. I think we can become close allies again if the situation requires it, but definitely won't if it does not. The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable. > 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten. With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians.
  - ericmay 21d ago
    > That is a very black and white view of the world. > The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable. Right, black and white haha. Well if we are highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable why would we do anything besides whatever we decide to do? Can’t trust us, can’t reason with us, and can’t rely on us. In that case, who gives a shit about alliances with Europe? > With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians. European wars started by Europeans. The Japanese may well have bombed Pearl Harbor anyway (don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought) but that war takes on a whole different character if simultaneously all the European powers weren’t initiating another round of their petulant and childish wars.
    - marcus_holmes 21d ago
      > don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought Let's not forget the Soviet Union, who did most of the actual heavy lifting of liberating Western Europe. If D-Day had never happened, the Soviets would have rolled right through Germany and then occupied France and the low countries. The Nazis would still have lost, but all of continental Europe would have been behind the iron curtain for the Cold War. The anglosphere allies didn't defeat Germany so much as stop the Soviets from occupying Western Europe.
- SpicyLemonZest 21d ago
  We're talking about different things. The French withdrawal from NATO unified command is a good example of what it means to say relationships can't just be repaired; it took 43 years to bring them back! It's true that the news can overstate just how much things have changed. The US and Canada remain major trade partners and strong allies, with NORAD currently in the middle of a week-long joint exercise, and it's unlikely that's going to change. But you should not expect a return to friendly trade relations in 2029.
  - ericmay 21d ago
    But they can be repaired. The OP claimed: > Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage So if you disagree with them you should reply to them and let them know the damage can be repaired.
    - SpicyLemonZest 21d ago
      Again, we're talking about different things. What the OP understands "repair the damage" to mean, which I know because I've seen the expectation myself in the wild, is that the next administration can restore the 2024 status quo by just going on a really compelling apology tour. I don't think that's likely; we're still going to see Canadians boycotting random consumer goods, Europeans demanding that everyone should move off American tech ASAP, and countries in general being a lot less willing to negotiate for trade agreements the Americans can't credibly promise to keep.
      - ericmay 20d ago
        Their lack of specificity does not invalidate my comment. > and countries in general being a lot less willing to negotiate for trade agreements the Americans can't credibly promise to keep. We have a lot of trade deals and have created new ones while Trump has been in office. Countries have willingly negotiated with us and us with them. What you are writing is ideological wishful thinking, not what is reflected in reality.
        20d ago
- ncphillips 21d ago
  They can be repaired but it is going to require a very significant amount of work on one side of the border in particular.
- ben_w 20d ago
  > They can be repaired - but if you think they can't be, then the US should act accordingly which would mean yea go ahead and take over Greenland, withdraw forces from Europe, &c. because as you say they can't be fixed so we might as well do whatever we think we want or need to do - that's the chain of reasoning that this theory of unrepairable relations sends us down. Irreparable doesn't make it a good idea to increase the damage, in much the same way that a company losing their trademark ("irreparable harm") can have an even worse time if all their banks suddenly refuse to do business with them. The US taking Greenland by force means either NATO ends, or it collectively is at war with the USA, either outcome within a week or less. Similar but with different timelines for the entire EU due to Article 42(7), even though not all EU member states are in NATO and vice versa. It means maximally escalating trade prohibition (which doesn't mean everything from day 0) rather than simply the absence of deals leading to tariffs. I will note with Suez, the British and French were humiliated, and by some the crisis is considered to be the end of the British empire. The British are not exactly beloved world-wide, despite what British newspapers will write about all the asylum seekers. And the French didn't fully withdraw from NATO, but from the US-led unified command and the control of NATO's nuclear arsenal, to approximately quote the Wikipedia page. Neither world war worked out well for those involved; for the British it was two Pyrrhic victories in a lifetime, for Germany it was humiliation and hyperinflation the first time around and getting quartered the second time around with active economic suppression only ending because of a proxy conflict of brain drain across what became the Iron Curtain. In both wars, Germany was seen as villainous for the next generation. The relative economic damage in Europe is what allowed the USA to become a superpower, and it only really supported Europe as a foil against Communism. Or just look at how much the borders changed going from pre-WW1 to post-WW2.

singpolyma3 21d ago

And yet were still selling power to USA. Ford lost his right to an opinion when he decided to make noise about "Fighting" but refuses to do the only thing that could cause trouble

ncphillips 21d ago

People I know change their meal plans if the only options are US products.