The Gaza Peace Plan, Greenland Sovereignty, and the New World Order

 

The Diabolical Way in which the $1b Gaza Peace Board Membership and the Plot for the Achievement of De Facto Sovereignty in Greenland Intersect.

The False Narrative About Defending Freedom and Democracy

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI (Link to complete AI exchange). 

Many people in the US and other Western countries believe their governments serve to promote freedom and democracy worldwide. However, this is often a false narrative—part of a deceptive conspiracy to mask less laudable priorities. theconversation.

When such conspiracies cease to be persuasive, they have to be refreshed. 

 

While official statements emphasize defending human rights, democracy, and freedom, the reality is more complicated and often contradictory:

• Military and Covert Coercion: Democratically elected leaders have been overthrown or even assassinated with Western involvement when their policies threatened Western economic or geopolitical interests:
  • The 1953 US CIA coup in Iran ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized oil, replacing him with the autocratic Shah britannica.
  • The 1973 US-backed coup in Chile toppled President Salvador Allende, leading to Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship bbcnews.
  • Similar covert interventions occurred in Guatemala (1954) history.com, and the Dominican Republic, among others guardian.
• Economic Coercion: Western-dominated institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank—often impose policies that benefit Western corporations and markets at the expense of local sovereignty and democratic choice in less developed countries eurasiareview. US-led sanctions and trade pressures are also used to achieve political goals carnegie.
• Political Manipulation and Election Interference: The US and its allies have covertly funded political actors, manipulated media narratives, and interfered in elections abroad to promote governments favorable to Western interests, undermining democratic processes foreignpolicy.
• Hypocrisy in Promoting Democracy: While Western governments publicly claim to defend democracy and rights, they often support authoritarian regimes when it suits their strategic interests carnegie lowy.

These practices mean the official narrative about protecting freedom is intertwined with coercion, manipulation, and selective enforcement—a coordinated strategy that misleads citizens about the real intent of foreign policy theconversation.

Evolution of the "Rules-Based World Order"

After World War II, the US and Western powers built a system led by institutions like the World Bank, IMF, WTO, G7, and NATO. This system promised universal benefits but was structured to favor Western interests eurasiareview carnegie.

• The rules and their enforcement have been selective, protecting Western allies and constraining less powerful states lowy.
• Developing countries have often faced economic pressure that benefits Western corporations and limits their sovereignty.
• NATO and similar alliances have functioned primarily to ensure Western strategic dominance.

The Shift to Transactional Bilateral Diplomacy (Since 2025)

With President Trump’s return in 2025, US foreign policy shifted away from multilateral alliances to bilateral, transactional deals focused on short-term gain and hard leverage carnegie25 diplomacyedu.

• Traditional allies, such as Canada and Japan, heavily reliant on US markets and with less diversification, became especially vulnerable "lowest hanging fruit" to pressure and demands brookings.
• This shift increased unpredictability and forced allies to diversify relationships to reduce dependence chathamhouse.
• Authoritarian regimes face less US pushback and are increasingly assertive foreignpolicy2025.
• The US focus is now on economic nationalism and deal-making, sidelining democracy and rights.

Impact on Global Power and the Emerging Multipolar World

• The weakening of the Western-led order and US retreat from multilateralism is creating space for other powers, like China and India lowy.
• Many countries seek a more multipolar world with diversified economic and security ties carnegie.
• Old allies economically overexposed to the US are now less secure, while stronger or more diversified middle and rising powers have increased leverage nytimes2025.

Plain Language Summary

In short: The widely believed story that the US and its allies are mainly motivated by promoting freedom and democracy worldwide is largely a myth, crafted to hide real priorities of protecting markets, resources, and global power theconversation.

For decades, Western powers have undermined democracy—including with coups, covert interventions, and economic pressure—when it conflicted with their interests. The so-called rules-based order promised fairness but delivered disproportionate benefits to the West. Now, under "America First" transactional diplomacy, even long-standing allies are under economic and political pressure, while the US abandons its previous commitment to collective values.

This shift is fueling the emergence of a multipolar world—where power is spread among more nations, alliances are uncertain, and those who once called themselves defenders of democracy now often challenge those very ideals in practice.

Nick Buxton's brutally honest take on 5% of GDP defense spending

 

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte holds the closing news conference during the second and last day of the NATO Summit on June 25, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands. This year's NATO summit, which brought together heads of state and government from across the military alliance, was held in the Netherlands for the first time [Omar Havana/Getty Images]

NATO’s leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) on “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035”. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a “quantum leap” in spending that would guarantee “freedom and security” for the military alliance’s one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security – and if so, for whom?

The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it’s easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025.

This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level.

Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It’s an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet.

In reality, the money will be diverted – most of all from social and environmental spending – even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: “If we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.”

Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon.

Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules.

NATO’s spending spree will not only divert money – it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 – roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan.

NATO’s justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of “Russia” and “terrorism”. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO’s actions partly set the stage for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO’s 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for “terrorism”, the idea that NATO’s increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the “War on Terror”, where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment.

The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump’s pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a “dynamic growth industry” and a “mega force” that will drive investment trends in the coming years.

NATO’s idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

---

• 
  Nick Buxton

  Researcher at the Transnational Institute

  Nick Buxton is a researcher at the Transnational Institute and co-editor of The Secure and the Dispossessed: How the military and corporations are shaping a climate-changed world (Pluto 2015

Carney, Canadian Sovereignty; US Power, and NATO Defense Spending

 

 

Mark Carney’s Leadership Amidst Structural Constraints

Mark Carney assumed leadership at a time when Canada’s long-standing, deeply integrated relationship with the United States was under unprecedented strain due to Trump’s transactional, coercive trade policies. Carney’s mandate was to defend Canadian sovereignty and chart a path toward economic diversification and resilience. Despite his business acumen and diplomatic skill, Carney’s options have been sharply limited by Canada’s structural economic dependence on the US, legal constraints from trade agreements like USMCA, and corporate realities where Canadian firms prioritize shareholder interests over national loyalty.

Carney has been forced to back down on key policies—most notably the digital services tax—under threat of US tariffs and suspended negotiations. His role has largely been defensive, mitigating damage rather than reversing the fundamental power imbalance.

The Abandonment of the Rules-Based World Order

For decades, the US championed a rules-based international economic order, emphasizing multilateralism, predictable trade rules, and mutual benefit. This system allowed smaller economies like Canada to prosper under agreed frameworks that limited arbitrary power.

Under Trump, this order was abandoned in favor of an overtly unipolar, power-based, and transactional economic strategy:

• The US now pursues bilateral negotiations leveraging its economic dominance, imposing tariffs and threats to extract concessions.

• It exploits asymmetries rather than seeking mutual gains, monetizing its power advantage by treating trade deficits as evidence of “unfair” deals.

• The US has undermined multilateral institutions like the WTO, making trade relations unpredictable and subject to US discretion.

This shift has left close allies like Canada exposed to unilateral US pressure, with little recourse.

Why Close US Allies Are More Vulnerable Than Less Integrated Economies

• Deep Economic Integration: Canada sends over 75% of its exports to the US, with supply chains, regulations, and investments deeply intertwined. This integration, once a source of stability, now means US policy changes cause immediate economic harm.

• Legal and Institutional Lock-In: Trade agreements restrict Canada’s ability to diversify or engage with alternative markets, limiting its strategic options.

• Limited Retaliatory Power: Canada’s smaller economy and dependence on the US market mean retaliation risks self-harm.

• Corporate Realities: Canadian companies often relocate or align with US interests if threatened, accelerating economic annexation sector by sector.

• Less Integrated Economies Have More Flexibility: Countries with more diversified trade portfolios can pivot more easily to alternative alliances and markets.

The Waning US Unipolar Order and Its Impact on Allies

• US global dominance is declining amid the rise of China, India, and regional blocs.

• Trump’s transactional diplomacy accelerated the erosion of US alliances and leadership.

• Close allies, deeply tied to the US system, face the greatest risk as the old order fragments.

• Alternatives to US dominance exist but are slow to develop and cannot yet replace the scale of US economic power.

NATO Defense Spending: Economic Leverage Beyond Military Threats

A crucial but often overlooked dimension is NATO’s evolving defense spending commitments:

• NATO members, including Canada, have increased their defense spending targets from 2% to 5% of GDP, with 3.5% dedicated to core military capabilities and an additional 1.5% for broader security-related infrastructure (roads, ports, cyber-security).

• This increase is less about responding to direct military threats and more about channeling hundreds of billions of public dollars into the US economy, primarily through the US Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).

• The “interoperability clause” requires NATO members to align their military infrastructure and procurement with US standards and suppliers, effectively guaranteeing US defense contractors a massive, captive market.

• Canada’s defense spending—though modest compared to the US—is part of this broader economic funnel, representing a significant transfer of public funds into the US economy beyond tariffs and trade policies.

• This dynamic reinforces Canada’s economic dependence and limits its sovereignty, as defense commitments become another lever of US economic and political influence.

Final Synthesis

Mark Carney’s leadership reflects a struggle for Canadian sovereignty in an era where US power is exercised through economic coercion and institutional leverage rather than direct confrontation. The US’s abandonment of the rules-based order in favor of a transactional, power-driven approach has left Canada and other close allies exposed and constrained.

The deep economic and institutional integration that once underpinned prosperity now limits Canada’s ability to resist or diversify. This vulnerability is compounded by NATO defense spending commitments that funnel vast public resources into the US Military-Industrial Complex, further binding Canada economically and politically to the US.

As US unipolar dominance wanes, the closest allies—Canada foremost among them—face the greatest uncertainty and risk. Carney’s challenge is to navigate this complex landscape, defending sovereignty where possible while managing dependence and seeking new partnerships in a shifting global order.

--with the collaboration of Perplexity  AI 

1. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-nato-defense-spending-as-a-share-of-gdp/
2. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-natos-new-5-defence-spending-target-2025-06-23/
3. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
4. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
5. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/criticism-nato-ignores-its-economic-benefit-us
6. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/nato-us-interest-washington-summit/
7. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-1-3t-in-nato-defense-spending/
8. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/25/nato-countries-budgets-compared-defence-vs-healthcare-and-education

 

---

Defense Spending: The Boondoggle Masked by the Bamboozle

 

The NATO Paradox: Security or Subsidy?

As NATO members race to meet ever-higher defense spending targets—now potentially 5% of GDP—calls for “burden sharing” and “alliance solidarity” have reached a fever pitch. But beneath the surface of these urgent appeals lies a less heroic reality: a system that funnels vast sums of public money into the coffers of the US military-industrial complex (MIC), with questionable returns for non-US taxpayers and only marginal gains for real security.

The Bamboozle: How We’re Sold on More Spending

The justification for increased defense outlays is wrapped in existential language: “threats to security,” “the need for deterrence,” and “alliance cohesion.” Leaders warn of looming dangers and invoke the specter of conflict to justify ever-larger budgets. But this narrative often obscures the underlying mechanics:

• Interoperability Requirements: NATO’s insistence on standardized, US-compatible systems means that a significant share of new defense spending is locked into purchasing American-made hardware and technology.

• One-Way Street: The US rarely buys major defense systems from its allies, ensuring that the flow of funds is largely one-directional—from European and Canadian public budgets to US private contractors.

• Political Pressure: There is strong encouragement—sometimes thinly veiled coercion—for allies to “buy American” as a demonstration of loyalty and commitment to the alliance.

The Boondoggle: Who Really Benefits?

The result is a system that is as wasteful as it is opaque:

• Public Money, Private Gain: Much of the increased spending is not building domestic defense industries or fostering innovation among allies, but rather subsidizing the US economy and its defense sector.

• Limited Domestic Stimulus: For non-US NATO members, the economic benefits of higher defense budgets are diluted, as a large share of funds flows abroad rather than creating jobs or technological spillovers at home.

• Opportunity Costs: Every dollar spent on redundant or unnecessary military systems is a dollar not spent on health, education, infrastructure, or climate resilience—investments that could offer greater long-term security and prosperity.

The Asymmetry of Alliance

The relationship within NATO has always been lopsided. The US sets the standards, provides the backbone of military capability, and reaps the economic rewards of allied procurement. Non-US members, meanwhile, are caught in a cycle of dependency, forced to modernize according to US specifications and to demonstrate their commitment through ever-larger defense budgets.

A Paradigm in Need of a Sift

It’s time to deconstruct the deductions behind NATO’s defense spending push. The current system is not just a boondoggle—a wasteful, self-serving project—but also a bamboozle, a sleight of hand that masks the real winners and losers. As defense spending targets rise, the question is not just whether the alliance is more secure, but who is truly being served by the billions flowing into the US MIC.

Conclusion

Defense spending is not just about security—it’s about power, profit, and the perpetuation of a system that benefits a few at the expense of many. To build a more sustainable and equitable alliance, it’s time to lift the veil on the bamboozle and demand a defense policy that serves the interests of all taxpayers, not just the bottom lines of the US military-industrial complex.

---

If you want to see the evolution of this analysis, and the sources it is based on, click here.

The US, UK and Iran in Historical Context:

 

 

In 1953, the United Kingdom sought U.S. support to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. The motive was not to defend democracy, but to protect British oil interests after Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The resulting CIA/MI6-backed coup ended Iran’s brief experiment with democracy and reinstalled the Shah’s authoritarian regime.

Today, the situation is reversed: the United States is seeking the United Kingdom’s approval to use UK-controlled bases (like Diego Garcia) for possible military action against Iran. The UK’s legal and political consent is now a key requirement for any such operation.

The irony is clear and striking: in 1953, the UK enlisted U.S. help to topple a democracy in Iran for its own interests; now, the U.S. needs UK permission to act against Iran. This historical reversal highlights how the defense of democracy was never the true motive in 1953—adding a poignant layer to today’s diplomatic dynamics.

Dashing the False Hopes of the Canadian Electorate:

Dashing the False Hopes of the Canadian Electorate:

[I thought I'd publish this now, two says before the election, just so I can say "I tried to warn you!" after the election.]

This election is expected to have unprecedented turnout. There are multiple crises that Canadians need the next government to resolve. Urgently. The two major parties –Poilievre’s Conservatives and Carney’s Liberals– claim to have solutions. They don’t.

The main crises are acknowledged by both parties: Trump’s threat to Canadian sovereignty; Trump’s tariffs and their implications for the Canadian economy; the housing crisis; the cost of living crisis; and inadequate defence spending. The NDP also share these concerns, but doesn’t expect to be in a position to implement solutions, if they have any. Instead they hope to win enough seats to mitigate the worst impacts on the most vulnerable Canadians. The Green Party has pretty much been written out of the script altogether, so we’ll focus on how the Liberals and Conservatives propose to address these crises, and the viability of their proposed solutions.


The viability of preventing annexation:

 Let’s begin with Trump’s oft-repeated intention to make Canada the 51st state. It was probably this issue that caused the Conservatives, who had hitherto enjoyed a significant lead in the opinion polls, to lose popularity and Carney’s Liberals to become the forerunners. It was probably also this issue that caused the NDP, Green Party, and People’s Party to lose much of what little support they had. Canadians decided that we need a PM able to “stand up to Donald Trump”, and Carney was deemed to be that person. He may not have the political experience that Poiliever has, but he was more savvy about the power dynamics at play. He was the adult in the room and played this card to the max. Furthermore, he recognized that the main planks in Poilievre’s platform were to “axe the tax” and to prevent Trudeau and the Liberals from continuing the ten years of mismanaging the economy. Carney wasted no time by “axing the tax” himself, and distancing himself from the Trudeau government by repeatedly pointing out to Poilievre that “Trudeau isn't in the room [son]”. This left Poilievre with nothing to set him apart from the Liberals, and he’s been scrambling ever since. His divisive adversarial, confrontational approach, his populist Trumpian rhetoric, and his failure to cast Carney as a continuation of the unpopular Trudeau have not enabled him to recapture the ground he lost to Carney. While many Canadians may still prefer the economic and social priorities of Poilievre’s Conservatives, they consider Carney best able to “stand up to Donald Trump”.

However, while Carney may indeed be more savvy about international economic dynamics, he is not in a position to be able to change them; he’s not in a position to protect Canadians from Trump's using his superior economic clout to bully Canadians. If Trump so chooses, and he probably will, he will use his economic clout to cause major economic hardship for Canadian businesses, workers, and the general population. He is already doing that, but a prolonged trade war will bankrupt many businesses, especially small ones. Over time, more and more Canadians will be forced to choose between feeding their families and retaining Canadian sovereignty. Even as PM Carney does not have the means of preventing that outcome. Nor does any other candidate. I wish it weren’t so.

The viability of strategies to  survive the Tariff War:
The obstacles to preventing annexation apply to the tariff war as well, which is, amongst other things, a tool to force annexation. Both the Conservatives and Liberals agree that the solution is to bolster Canada’s economic strength. They aren’t very explicit about how a stronger economy will strengthen Canada’s resilience, but both agree that stimulating the private sector is key. To that end, they plan to implement the same solution they have to each and every crisis: encourage corporate investment by lowering taxes, reducing regulations and red tape, along with other incentives such as subsidies. This solution is packaged in slightly different ways so that it appears to address each crisis. Once properly stimulated, it is assumed that prospective investors will suddenly overcome their reticence to invest due to the extreme market volatility and uncertainty. They will suddenly start building houses, pipelines, mines, and a west-east energy corridor, etc., employing more and more workers, thereby turning Canada into such a self-sufficient economic powerhouse that it will be impervious to US tariffs and threats of annexation. That is what our primary candidates would have us believe, and most of us will. These solutions will be considered viable because the alternative-no solutions at all–is unthinkable. And neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are going to miss the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with their corporate sponsors by passing up this newest opportunity to once again apply the Shock Doctrine. People in crisis, they know, are usually willing to believe and accept things that they otherwise would not.

The viability of plans to solve the housing crisis:
Solutions to the housing crisis are an excellent example. In addition to the aforementioned stimuli, another proposal is to subsidize new home buyers. Carney’s Liberals proposed removing the GST on new homes valued at $1,000,000 or less. Not to be outdone, the Conservatives said they would remove the GST on homes valued at $1,250,000 or less. At first glance this seems to make sense, but upon closer examination, both are cynical attempts to trick and defraud Canadian taxpayers into subsidizing home sellers, not home buyers. Homes that sold for $1,000,000 plus $50,000 GST prior to the subsidies would sell for $1,000,000 plus $50,000 after the subsidies went into effect. The appraisal of $1,000,000 was based on what buyers would pay; If buyers had paid $1,000,000 plus $50,000 GST = $1,050,000 before the subsidies, they would pay the same amount after the subsidies. Sellers will simply take the opportunity to jack up the price by $50,000.

This is particularly beneficial to large corporate landlords like Brookfield, which Carney used to manage and still has shares in–a blatant conflict of interest. Brookfield played a large role in creating the housing crisis that Carney and Poilievre now say they’re going to fix by removing the GST. Furthermore, as a corporate landlord engaged in renovictions–evicting tenants so that they could renovate the premises and rent it out again at much higher rates. To add insult to injury, and taxpayer fraud to taxpayer fraud, Carney is allocating $25B in federal financing for prefab/modular homes. It is not likely coincidental, given that Brookfield, in 2021, while Mark Carney was chair, acquired Modulaire Group, a major manufacturer of modular and prefabricated buildings. Even in the role of Prime Minister, Carney can never do as much to solve the housing crisis as he has already done to create it.

Ostensibly, Carney and Poilievre may be political opponents, but they are perfectly in sync when it comes to benefiting corporations like Brookfield at taxpayers expense.

The viability of solutions to the cost of living crisis:
The cost of living crisis, which preexisted the crises listed above, is exacerbated by all of them, and will only be further exacerbated when the proposed solutions are implemented. For the reasons we’ve already discussed, the proposed solutions will benefit corporations, not those negatively impacted by these crises.

The viability of solutions to inadequate defence capabilities:
Given the nature of the threats facing Canada, the level of defence spending shouldn’t even be part of political discourse. The North is threatened, but you can't fight melting icecaps militarily. To be sure, there are very real threats facing us, including existential threats to our sovereignty and integrity, but no amount of defence spending is going to remove them. The primary threat to our sovereignty lies to the south of us, not to the north. It is not Russia. It is not China. It is the USA.

Likewise, the primary threat to our democracy is not Russian interference. It is not Chinese interference. It is corporate influence over policy and decision-making, both in our own and in the US governments. That is not to say that there has been no interference whatsoever by foreign states, but these have primarily been efforts to influence government representatives and/or the public through misinformation via social media. Those threats are dwarfed by the threat of outsized corporate influence.

The military threat posed by Russia is grossly exaggerated. After three years of warfare and thousands of casualties, Russia has yet to gain full control of even a small fraction of Ukraine. It is absurd to think it will successfully invade and occupy another European country in the near or medium term, much less a North American country.

China is indeed a threat, but not a military one. China’s use of its military has been entirely defensive, whereas the US has launched hundreds of military actions, most to expand and protect its hegemony over the world’s resources. These actions include the installation and propping up of dictators, the overthrow and assassination of political opponents, and resource-grabs, as was the case in Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 1953. The threat posed by China is that it is on track to replace the US as the world’s dominant economic power. Some middle powers, such as India, Indonesea, Brazil aren’t entirely reliant on the US, China or Russia, but most Western countries have their wagons hitched to the US economy; their economic welfare is largely contingent on the US retaining global economic supremacy. A threat to economic supremacy is construed as a threat to US sovereignty, hegemony, exceptionalism, and entitlement, and therefore inherently unjust. China’s economic success is construed as undeserved and therefore a form of belligerence. It must be demonized and resisted, militarily if necessary.

All this requires a massive increase in defence spending, to the delight of the military industrial arms complex. The already obscene amount of resources allocated to defence will become even more obscene, preventing the allocation of funds to combat global warming, world hunger, a climate change loss-and-damage fund, affordable housing, and a host of other things. This misallocation of scarce resources is even more deadly than most wars and the genocide in Gaza. Yet the Liberals, Conservatives, and even the New Democrats are in favour of a massive increase in arms spending.

The back-burner crises that are now being removed from the stove altogether:
Even more reprehensible are the ways in which other crises are being ignored. The refugee crisis has morphed from concern for the refugees to concern about how to prevent them from coming here. According to Poilievre the needs of indigenous people will be met if they welcome extractive and other industries into their territory. Climate change is not being ignored. Green technology will be promoted by inviting extractive industries to extract “critical” minerals from the peat lands in Ontario’s Ring of Fire. There is purportedly something green (I can’t quite remember what) about NORAD expansion in the north.

And so forth.

In conclusion:
Canadians would do well to reexamine the choices before them in this election, and act accordingly. I won’t presume to tell you how you should act. Just act. Urgent action is called for.

The Coup, the Broligarchy and the New World Order

We're going to have a hard time getting the attention, sympathy and collaboration of our American friends for a while. They're very busy trying to undo a coup.

 

Protesting the coup

To understand the radical changes in the US foreign policy one must first understand the radical changes that have and are taking place in America domestically. There’s been a coup. It is, as yet, incomplete. Trump and a very small cohort of technocrat centi-billionaires (referred to hereafter as the broligarchy) are taking control of the country. The rule-based approach to both domestic and foreign policy has been replaced with a transactional approach.

Internationally relations with other countries will be negotiated solely basis of their power relative to the US. The disparity in power between weaker and dependent nations will be monetized, irrespective of what those relations were historically. For instance, nations that are heavily dependent on access to US markets will have to pay for that access, either with tariffs, or other concessions. Wealthier trading partners will be able to negotiate better terms. Canada and Mexico will initially have to pay 25% tariffs for access, while relatively powerful China will only have to pay 10% tariffs. Historical enemies like Russia won’t be treated any differently than historical allies. There are no moral or ideological underpinnings or restrictions here. If a deal with Russia is lucrative, while financing Ukraine’s war on Russia is not, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus, irrespective of how NATO partners feel about it. The spoils will be divided. Trump et al have proposed that Ukraine repay the US for previously supplied weapons with 50% or more of their critical minerals. Russia benefits from the crippling of NATO and the normalizing of relations. NATO and other European countries will not be able to defend themselves from further Russian aggression without US support. Nato members will either have to dramatically increase their defence spending in support of NATO to appease the US, or come up with an alternative defence force of their own. Both options would put billions into the coffers of US arms manufacturers because at present European arms manufacturers don’t have the capacity to replace US arms. Additionally, they would have to replace thousands of US troops and military bases in Europe, who, in any case, are unlikely to be deployed against the new trading partner –Russia. Thus the imbalance of military might between the US and its former allies will also be monetized.

Domestically entities and agencies that cost money rather than make money are being dismantled at an alarming rate. So are the checks and balances intended to prevent the abuse of authority. It’s all part of Musk’s and his bros' –the broligarchy– plans to reduce government spending by at least one trillion dollars. Despite never having been elected or vetted Musk was placed in charge of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), accountable to no one, but nonetheless with an office in the White House. Already many government agencies that provided essential services have been dismantled, or soon will be, as alarmed opponents desperately scramble to get temporary judicial restraining orders. Additionally, tens of thousands of experienced public servants are being fired, including judges from the Department of Justice. (Some of these dismissals may be more about punishing those who ruled against Trump or Musk rather than about saving money.) Congress seems to be completely subordinated to the Executive Branch, as demonstrated by two occasions in which Trump and Musk blocked government spending bills despite the bills having had bilateral support. The daily protests by thousands of government employees and other concerned citizens seem to be ineffectual. –Should the need arise, Trump has contingency plans in placeto mobilize the National Guard and other state security forces to squelch dissent–the enemy within. Meanwhile, the resulting domestic crisis is diverting attention away from the massive changes in foreign relations.

The threat of tariffs and annexation of Canada is real, although the latter may be unlikely, (More on that later) But appeals based on the previous rule-based world order, or to sympathetic American consumers and businesses who would also be adversely affected by tariffs, are futile. In the case of the former, simply because the rules of the previous rule-based world order are no longer in place. The premise of the second is that Trump might be dissuaded by the pain his actions will cause fellow Americans. The history of his previous term in office, and all of his actions to date in this term, indicate that he doesn’t care one iota about the pain caused to his compatriots. As long as the pain is somebody else’s, he can live with it, Maybe he even get some perverse sadistic pleasure out of watching people plead, grovel and whimper. As long as it doesn’t interrupt the accumulation and consolidation of the wealth and power of the Broligarchy it is okay. Under this rubric, there is no appeasing Trump et al. More wealth results in additional power. Additional power provides the means to exact even more concessions and raise tariffs even higher, in an endless positive feedback loop. Giving the bully your lunch money won’t stop him from coming back for more, again and again. This applies as much to external affairs as it does to domestic ones.

The whole scheme is analogous to another such scheme most of us are less cognizant of: the relations between wealthy countries and less-developed countries (LDCs) in the global rule-based economy. Contrary to the popular belief that wealthy nations are wealthy because of merit –our superior technology, our work ethic, our ingenuity, etc.– we are also monetizing and exploiting an imbalance of power. The rules that benefit us are not some natural phenomenon predetermined by natural laws of nature or an invisible hand; they are rules created and enforced by global institutions. Institutions that wealthy countries and corporations have created to maintain and exploit their power over LDCs. These institutions include the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, NATO, and the G7, USAID, to name but a few. The difference between this and Trump’s transactional bilateral approach is that the rule-based world order befitted wealthy nations collectively at the expense of LDCs, while Trump’s transactional might-makes-right approach deals with countries individually. This transactional approach eliminates the need for all these aforementioned institutions needed in the rules-based economy to create, maintain and enforce a favourable rule-based world order. For the broligarchy’s purposes, such rules are superfluous –unnecessary and unjustifiable expenses.

In some ways, Trump’s approach is more akin to the rule of the imperial colonial global powers of old. In that epoch, other countries were subjugated and colonized through the use of military might, in the name of God and King. However, post WWII, most of these colonies were granted “independence”--pseudo independence because they remained economically dependent on their former colonial overlords, but the expense and hassle of administration was transferred to locals –right-wing dictators, elected officials, kings, etc. These were propped up by the now-neocolonial powers, or, if they were uncooperative, replaced or killed. Under the new neocolonialism control over the resources –both human and material– continued unabated. (Under such an arrangement Canada may also avoid annexation if the Broligarchy doesn’t want to take on the expense and hassle of administration.) There was rivalry between superpowers --the West and the USSR for instance-- that affected access to satellite countries' resources, but dynamic may be attenuated under the US's new transactional modus operandi, because of Trump’s apparent readiness to negotiate with former adversaries. He and his broligarchy are narrowly focused on the accumulation and consolidation of wealth and power. They don’t aspire to achieve global hegemony or spreading an ideology, and therefore don’t have to compete with rivals on that score.

Things are undoubtedly more nuanced than what I have described them here, but I hope this will help people get past the incredulousness everyone seems to be feeling. I think once you see and recognize the nature of the paradigm shift we are experiencing things will make more sense. Trump is not the blundering idiot others and he himself makes him out to be. Consider this is a warning. He and his broligarchy cartel are far more treacherous than they appear. Most of what Trump has said and done, what he’s saying and doing, will start to make sense if viewed through the lens of this transactional approach. Horrifying sense.  (Continues below)

____________________________________________________