Conversation

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
Replying to and
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.
2
2
Replying to and
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
US cannot maintain forward presence across the Atlantic without a compliant Europe, and a European military would easily match US'. Yuge element of entrenched resistance to Trump is him wanting the EU to increase their military presence. This is what the neocons *actually* hate.
1