Which sucks, because Kalmar is kind of a cool name, but if the Norwegians are going to feel shitty about it, we gotta win them over somehow.
OK, how to get around NATO and the EU 🤔
Conversation
So I think the EU is actually the easier one. Either we strong-arm the Norwegians to join (of course we have to convince the Euros to let Canada in too)...
or we negotiate a Kalmarexit. Of course, because Canada and the four northern states (I can't remember if there is a...
1
1
collective description that fits all four of Denmark, Finland, Norway & Sweden; I think "Nordic" and "Scandinavian" only fit three of four, and its not the same three)...anyways, we've got superior diplomats, so we won't f*** up a Kalexit the way the Brits are doing it.
2
1
I think in case of Finland the obvious problem would be is that the average Finn is pretty proud of the independent status of our country, due to historical reasons. Joining in with the Swedes would be, suspicious. In your speculation, how to overcome that?
2
1
I also think NATO membership is actually a mistake for EU and for hypothetical. It's a US-dominated system by design.
This project is about independence from US hegemony on trade, security, military. NATO membership undermines that.
Outsourcing mil to US is a cost saver, but...
2
1
But the opportunity cost is far, far greater than the cost of actually maintaining troops. US mil is massively bloated and inefficient, so not a good comparison.
European coalition army would exceed US capabilities at much lower cost, from not needing coercive forward ops.
2
1
The weird pickle that we'd be in as Kalmar is the need to maintain defence integration between CAN and the US
The ostensible reason for that is continental defence integration and interoperability
The unspoken reason is that we are, since 1945, effectively a colony of the US
2
1
The US-CAN relationship though is hugely positive sum. It's A Good Thing.
Kalmar would have to proceed cautiously to preserve good will and a good bilateral relationship with the USA
This will be a constant source of difficulty and friction between policymakers from...
1
1
...different sides of the Atlantic.
The Scandinavians/Nordics of Kalmar might tend to push a more anti-American diplomatic line
And while that will warm many a Canadian-Kalmarian heart, our heads will tell us to measure our talk and maintain a very cordial relationship with...
1
1
The problem with this is that US militarism is fundamentally about maintaining an extractivist economic system that will literally kill everyone.
It *has* to die. Urgently. And it has to be replaced with something unlike Russian, EU or Chinese strategy, which are the same.
Yes. When we somehow get you on the throne of Kalmar, as one of your ministers, I'll recommend a variant of this as the core of our energy, economic and technology policies
1
1
What I will say is that Canada has experience managing this relationship. For example, our PM Chretien in 2003 did not take us into Iraq. Three/fifths of the Anglosphere went. We and New Zealand did not. There was immense pressure on us to go.
We went to Afghanistan, but...
1
1
...did not get involved in Cheney and PNAC's stupid and useless war.
So, while we're not perfect, and your larger point may be right that Kalmar must not be in NATO, the Kalmarian border will be at the Juan de Fuca Strait, 49th parallel, Great Lakes, and the townships of Quebec
1
Show replies