And just to nuance the ICC bit further, neither the USA nor China is a member of the ICC -- so China would definitely not hand him over to them. And USA is their largest customer (though China, like everyone else, is trying to diversify for the same reasons).
China is annoyed, though, over oil (extensive investment in Venezuela, and Iranian oil disrupted).
The USA is annoyed because the rest of the world is partnering with China on much of their infrastructure and EV needs, etc.
So as you suggest, seeing what comes of this meeting will be very interesting.
You’re absolutely right that neither the U.S. nor China is an ICC member under the Rome Statute system.
So the idea of China handing over an American president to the ICC was never realistically on the table in the first place.
And your broader point gets to the real engine underneath all this...
interdependence.
The U.S. remains deeply tied to China economically.
China remains heavily reliant on export markets.
The rest of the world increasingly relies on Chinese infrastructure, manufacturing capacity, batteries, EV systems, and industrial scale.
Meanwhile the U.S. is trying to slow strategic dependence without fully untangling itself from the system it helped build through globalization.
That’s why the rhetoric and the reality often look completely different from each other.
And yes...
oil, shipping lanes, industrial supply chains, rare earths, and energy security are all tangled into this far more than most headlines explain.
The Venezuela and Iranian angles matter because global energy flows affect everybody’s inflation, manufacturing costs, and political stability downstream.
Which is why I agree with your final point...
Whatever comes out of future U.S.–China talks probably matters less as a “friendship” story…
and more as a signal about where the global balance is drifting next.
Great post Fred! What I am seeing/feeling from OB in the whitehouse....Mommmmm he touched me, Canada replies...we shop where we bloody well WANT to shop! He makes just about that kind of sense, AND, I stopped US shopping, in stores & online, even China has better quality than some of the border shops. AND better prices. I still feel the grief of our southern neighbours :( Not their leader though.
I totally agree Fred! See how one rotten apple has spoiled the whole bunch...of us? Very sad time in history. Wish we could all live long enough to read the history books & let Canadians be the author, with commentaries from all affected countries!
I think you’ve made a pretty good analysis of the broad situation - and honestly, getting too deep into the weeds and farther down the rabbit holes on any of the specifics is likely to make one want to off themselves; or at the very least, hide under the covers eating cookies in bed for a good solid week ;)
Canada is making the smart move - that whole “all your eggs in one basket” sage advice applies to individual financial investments so the axiom sure as shit holds true on a National level. Diversify. And ever more so in this age of the unipolar “super power ” literally imploding in on itself, in every conceivable way.
As it stands, like it or not, PM Carney has a majority Liberal government and is responsible for the wheeling and dealing; and not in that crass, hillbilly, bully way as so obviously and obnoxiously displayed by the demented despot in tangerine patina…but in that calm, collected, STABLE, diplomatic way that PM Carney has been portraying, to the degree that he has been walking through doors never before opened to our country. This is a test of trust. The reciprocal deal, IMO, that he must make with the Canadian people is one of TRANSPARENCY & REALNESS. These are times in which everyone is watching, time will tell, results will be borne out by the evidence.
Elbows up, keep the faith, (keep the receipts) - we’re in the making of a new and restructured world.
Friendly but candid advice from a friend: It’s laudable that Canadians love their country. However, the reality is that the US GDP is 1000% higher than Canada’s and Canada is a military weakling. The US and China are peer superpowers who will act in their own best interests. The lack of symmetric messages simply reflects that Canada is largely dependent on the US economy and wholly dependent on US defense. Trump has said rudely but the message is nevertheless true-Canada is a US partner but it is not an equal partner. The only hope Canada has of being taken seriously is getting internal support from the relatively small sector of the US economy that is meaningfully reliant on Canada trade. Nothing Canada does on its own or even in combination with Mexico will affect the administration’s approach to trade. As an example, ending the auto industry supply chain would have a negative impact on the US auto industry but it would survive. It would likely kill the Canadian auto industry particularly if China starts dumping cheap EVs in Canada. To be clear, Canada should do what it can to improve its negotiating position but should not delude itself into expecting an equal place at the table. On the defense side, it has no position at all. Purchasing arms from non- US sources will not make a dent in the military industrial complex. China and Russia are offensive threats and the US is the only defensive alternative. Carney has done a good job of taking attention away from these realities but there is no possibility anything he does will alter the balance. The only way to move forward is to see things as they are; not as one would like them to be. Stop wish-casting about the impact of new trade deals and focus on making internal US allies. That is the only way to achieve more favorable outcomes.
Some interesting points here. I fully agree that every country should act in its own best interests. As Carney said in Davos the post war notion that we are all one big happy family governed by international rule of law has always been an illusion. To be clear, my post was not about US v Canada but rather on a mutually beneficial collaboration, with US industry, which can influence the administration, as a possible way to get back to a less adversarial posture on both sides. The auto industry is a tough sell because Trump believes Canada has cost US jobs. However, Trump loves oil. Whatever political posture one takes on the Iran war, it has demonstrated that the world would benefit from oil production that is not reliant on transport through the Straights of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are already adapting to this reality by bypassing the SOH via pipeline delivery to the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The US and Canada both have ample ability to increase production and can partner to create greater market share for both countries via increased Canadian export to US refineries via new pipeline infrastructure. That’s just an example of how both sides can realize a win. Getting the US oil companies on board would give Canada powerful allies at the negotiation table and also serve the US well. Just an example. I believe , rude as the message was, Trump is acting in what he believes is the US national interest. I think he would be more amenable to “let’s make a deal where we can both make money” than ”elbows up” which might elicit more national pride but achieve less national benefit. As you say, smaller countries adapt but they need not submit. Win-Win is an achievable goal and a more realistic approach than “I’ll just take my business elsewhere” in this situation. Peace.
To that point, please keep in mind that Slotkin is a strongly anti-Trump Democrat with a history in the CIA; she knows a thing or two about how the Chinese do intelligence, I don't think she said what she said out of any kind of malice or intention to belittle Canada but out of concern that putting Chinese communications systems on your roads might not be as safe as you hope. (She strongly opposes them in the US, too.)
As long as you're going into the agreement with the awareness that China may turn out not to be a great partner, I think she'll be fine with you doing it.
And who knows? In a few years the demand for electric vehicles could be great enough on this side of the border for us to drop our opposition to them, too!
But the only thing she seems to be missing (like almost every American), is that THEY DO IT TOO! How much of our cell phone/car navigation data is squirrelled off to some Apple/Google server? Or with the household, Apple & Amazon servers (with Siru/Alexa data). DOGE was the wake-up call about how Americans are just as good at spying on us as the Chinese are.
So being from Michigan, I know that she's worried about auto sector supply chains and what the threat of "new entrants" could mean to that (note that if we opt for either vendor for submarines, then we will see greater presence (assembly) or outright manufacturing of Hyundai, Audi, military/large-industrial vehicles, more EV batteries . . . . the list goes on!
. . . and the Chinese have hinted at making the EVs in Canada, too, if there seems to be permanent demand (and the BYD's sell for 1/2 the price of a Tesla and do the same things -- oh, and the Tesla, I'm sure, is spying on us as well!).
Good point about the US spying on us, too, although there was a time when I thought "us" was the good guys; never no more since DoGE . . .
And I think she's smarter than to think the "auto sector supply chain" is going to be saved somehow by keeping Chinese EVs out of Michigan: for all $rump's bluster about "bringing manufacturing back", I don't think he's invested a dime in our industries, so that's not happenin'.
That’s the part a lot of people are increasingly noticing, Grant...
modern surveillance capitalism didn’t exactly begin in Beijing.
Most people already carry around devices tied into American tech ecosystems collecting location history, voice data,
Search behaviour, shopping patterns, contacts, driving habits, biometrics, and behavioural profiles at industrial scale.
DOGE rattled people because it exposed just how interconnected data, state power, and private tech platforms have become inside the American system itself.
Which doesn’t invalidate concerns about Chinese systems...
it just complicates the moral framing of...
“our surveillance = normal”
“their surveillance = unacceptable.”
And yes, the industrial angle matters enormously too.
Michigan politicians are naturally going to think about automotive disruption, manufacturing jobs, supply chains,
and competitive pressure from lower-cost EV entrants.
That’s politics. Every country protects strategic industries when threatened.
The interesting part for Canada is the leverage question...
if foreign automakers start assembling or manufacturing here...
whether Korean, European, American, or Chinese...
that potentially shifts Canada from “customer” toward “participant” in the industrial ecosystem.
That’s a very different conversation economically.
But your final point is the one that really scrambles the debate...
People are increasingly comparing actual price-to-value ratios now.
If consumers see one EV costing dramatically less while offering similar functionality,
Governments eventually get squeezed between national security concerns, industrial policy, affordability pressures, and voter frustration.
And that balancing act is only going to get harder from here.
And I think it’s important not to swing from “blind trust in the U.S.” to “blind trust in China,” because neither superpower operates primarily out of charity.
Every major state acts in its own strategic interests eventually.
The surveillance and data concerns around connected EV systems, communications infrastructure, mapping tech, and digital ecosystems are legitimate discussions...
especially in a world where vehicles are increasingly becoming rolling computers.
I also agree that Slotkin’s comments may have been intended more as a security warning than an insult.
Where Canadians reacted strongly, I think, was less the warning itself and more the broader context surrounding it...
being cautioned publicly about China while simultaneously watching Washington pursue its own negotiations and economic arrangements with China.
That contradiction is what people are responding to emotionally.
But strategically?
I think your framing is probably the healthiest one...
I'm not on board with the idea that "Washington [is pursuing] its own negotiations and economic arrangements with China". His Heinous is going there, and I feel certain he expects to teach Xi all about "the art of the deal", but I don't think for a minute he'll come away with anything more/better than what we have now.
But then, I'm convinced the reason we're mired in Iran is that Net-and-yahoo convinced $$trump that he'd get piles of money and the world's admiration for defeating Iran, when in fact all BeeBee wanted was cover for his genocide in Lebanon. So you can color me a skeptic on that point.
It would be nice if China turned trump over to the intl. court for prosecution
That would certainly make for the most awkward state dinner in modern history Jeanie.
But realistically, no major power is handing over a sitting or former U.S. president to an international court.
Countries use international law very selectively when big geopolitical interests are involved.
The bigger story right now is something quieter...
America’s rivals no longer seem intimidated the way they once were...
and that shift alone is changing global behaviour fast.
And just to nuance the ICC bit further, neither the USA nor China is a member of the ICC -- so China would definitely not hand him over to them. And USA is their largest customer (though China, like everyone else, is trying to diversify for the same reasons).
China is annoyed, though, over oil (extensive investment in Venezuela, and Iranian oil disrupted).
The USA is annoyed because the rest of the world is partnering with China on much of their infrastructure and EV needs, etc.
So as you suggest, seeing what comes of this meeting will be very interesting.
That’s a solid nuance to add, Grant.
You’re absolutely right that neither the U.S. nor China is an ICC member under the Rome Statute system.
So the idea of China handing over an American president to the ICC was never realistically on the table in the first place.
And your broader point gets to the real engine underneath all this...
interdependence.
The U.S. remains deeply tied to China economically.
China remains heavily reliant on export markets.
The rest of the world increasingly relies on Chinese infrastructure, manufacturing capacity, batteries, EV systems, and industrial scale.
Meanwhile the U.S. is trying to slow strategic dependence without fully untangling itself from the system it helped build through globalization.
That’s why the rhetoric and the reality often look completely different from each other.
And yes...
oil, shipping lanes, industrial supply chains, rare earths, and energy security are all tangled into this far more than most headlines explain.
The Venezuela and Iranian angles matter because global energy flows affect everybody’s inflation, manufacturing costs, and political stability downstream.
Which is why I agree with your final point...
Whatever comes out of future U.S.–China talks probably matters less as a “friendship” story…
and more as a signal about where the global balance is drifting next.
I really hope Canada stays strong!
We plan to!!!! Thank you :)
"Washington still talks to Canada as a junior partner at the table" but that is changing, and rather rapidly, whether the Americans like it or not.
I think a lot of Canadians are sensing that shift now, Ron.
Not in some loud “anti-American” way…
more in a quiet realization that Canada needs more strategic independence
than we’ve had in decades.
Different trade routes.
Different defense conversations.
Different supply chains.
More leverage.
More optionality.
Healthy partnerships are supposed to be built on mutual respect...
not assumptions that one side will always fall in line automatically.
And honestly, some of the pressure tactics of the last few years...
may have accelerated Canada’s push toward diversification
faster than any speech ever could.
Great post Fred! What I am seeing/feeling from OB in the whitehouse....Mommmmm he touched me, Canada replies...we shop where we bloody well WANT to shop! He makes just about that kind of sense, AND, I stopped US shopping, in stores & online, even China has better quality than some of the border shops. AND better prices. I still feel the grief of our southern neighbours :( Not their leader though.
That’s exactly the emotional shift I think a lot of Canadians are going through right now, Patsy.
Not hatred toward ordinary Americans…
more like exhaustion with the chaos, the pressure, and the constant “do what we say while we do something else” routine.
And honestly, consumers vote quietly every day with wallets, vacations, subscriptions, and shopping habits.
Governments notice eventually.
The strange part is this whole era may end up pushing Canada to become more independent than we’ve been in decades.
Sometimes the fastest way to lose influence…
is to overplay your hand.
I totally agree Fred! See how one rotten apple has spoiled the whole bunch...of us? Very sad time in history. Wish we could all live long enough to read the history books & let Canadians be the author, with commentaries from all affected countries!
I think you’ve made a pretty good analysis of the broad situation - and honestly, getting too deep into the weeds and farther down the rabbit holes on any of the specifics is likely to make one want to off themselves; or at the very least, hide under the covers eating cookies in bed for a good solid week ;)
Canada is making the smart move - that whole “all your eggs in one basket” sage advice applies to individual financial investments so the axiom sure as shit holds true on a National level. Diversify. And ever more so in this age of the unipolar “super power ” literally imploding in on itself, in every conceivable way.
As it stands, like it or not, PM Carney has a majority Liberal government and is responsible for the wheeling and dealing; and not in that crass, hillbilly, bully way as so obviously and obnoxiously displayed by the demented despot in tangerine patina…but in that calm, collected, STABLE, diplomatic way that PM Carney has been portraying, to the degree that he has been walking through doors never before opened to our country. This is a test of trust. The reciprocal deal, IMO, that he must make with the Canadian people is one of TRANSPARENCY & REALNESS. These are times in which everyone is watching, time will tell, results will be borne out by the evidence.
Elbows up, keep the faith, (keep the receipts) - we’re in the making of a new and restructured world.
Canada Strong! 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
“Keep the receipts” may honestly be one of the smartest political survival strategies of this entire era.
Because you’re right TN...
we are watching a restructuring happen in real time...
trade,
alliances,
energy,
supply chains,
currency influence,
technology,
even public trust itself.
And most people can feel it even if they can’t fully map it yet.
I also think your “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” analogy is exactly how many Canadians are now viewing trade and diplomacy.
Diversification isn’t betrayal.
It’s risk management.
As for Carney, I suspect part of why some people respond positively to him internationally is tone.
Calmness itself has become strangely rare in politics.
In an era of constant outrage performance, steady starts looking almost radical.
But I agree with your second point too...
trust ultimately has to be earned through transparency, results, and honesty about tradeoffs... not slogans.
Interesting times to be alive, that’s for damn sure.
Friendly but candid advice from a friend: It’s laudable that Canadians love their country. However, the reality is that the US GDP is 1000% higher than Canada’s and Canada is a military weakling. The US and China are peer superpowers who will act in their own best interests. The lack of symmetric messages simply reflects that Canada is largely dependent on the US economy and wholly dependent on US defense. Trump has said rudely but the message is nevertheless true-Canada is a US partner but it is not an equal partner. The only hope Canada has of being taken seriously is getting internal support from the relatively small sector of the US economy that is meaningfully reliant on Canada trade. Nothing Canada does on its own or even in combination with Mexico will affect the administration’s approach to trade. As an example, ending the auto industry supply chain would have a negative impact on the US auto industry but it would survive. It would likely kill the Canadian auto industry particularly if China starts dumping cheap EVs in Canada. To be clear, Canada should do what it can to improve its negotiating position but should not delude itself into expecting an equal place at the table. On the defense side, it has no position at all. Purchasing arms from non- US sources will not make a dent in the military industrial complex. China and Russia are offensive threats and the US is the only defensive alternative. Carney has done a good job of taking attention away from these realities but there is no possibility anything he does will alter the balance. The only way to move forward is to see things as they are; not as one would like them to be. Stop wish-casting about the impact of new trade deals and focus on making internal US allies. That is the only way to achieve more favorable outcomes.
Some interesting points here. I fully agree that every country should act in its own best interests. As Carney said in Davos the post war notion that we are all one big happy family governed by international rule of law has always been an illusion. To be clear, my post was not about US v Canada but rather on a mutually beneficial collaboration, with US industry, which can influence the administration, as a possible way to get back to a less adversarial posture on both sides. The auto industry is a tough sell because Trump believes Canada has cost US jobs. However, Trump loves oil. Whatever political posture one takes on the Iran war, it has demonstrated that the world would benefit from oil production that is not reliant on transport through the Straights of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are already adapting to this reality by bypassing the SOH via pipeline delivery to the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The US and Canada both have ample ability to increase production and can partner to create greater market share for both countries via increased Canadian export to US refineries via new pipeline infrastructure. That’s just an example of how both sides can realize a win. Getting the US oil companies on board would give Canada powerful allies at the negotiation table and also serve the US well. Just an example. I believe , rude as the message was, Trump is acting in what he believes is the US national interest. I think he would be more amenable to “let’s make a deal where we can both make money” than ”elbows up” which might elicit more national pride but achieve less national benefit. As you say, smaller countries adapt but they need not submit. Win-Win is an achievable goal and a more realistic approach than “I’ll just take my business elsewhere” in this situation. Peace.
I actually think parts of what you’re saying are objectively true.
The United States is vastly larger economically and militarily than Canada.
Nobody serious disputes that.
Geography alone ties Canada tightly to the American system whether people like it or not.
But I think where many Canadians are pushing back now is on the assumption that size automatically means permanent obedience.
Smaller countries throughout history survive by diversifying risk, building alliances, increasing leverage where possible, and avoiding overdependence
on any single power... even friendly ones.
That’s not fantasy.
That’s basic strategic behaviour.
And honestly, I don’t think most Canadians believe Canada is suddenly becoming a peer superpower.
The shift is more psychological than imperial...
moving from “automatic alignment” toward “conditional partnership.”
That matters.
Because even within asymmetric relationships, leverage still exists...
energy,
minerals,
food,
water,
Arctic geography,
banking stability,
critical supply chains,
defense positioning,
and access to trusted democratic markets.
As for defense, I agree the U.S. remains central to North American security.
That’s simply reality.
But allies also tend to ask harder questions when trust becomes less predictable.
Diversifying procurement or trade doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning the relationship... sometimes it means trying to reduce vulnerability inside it.
And on the trade side, I’d argue something important has already changed...
Canada is no longer talking as though access to the American market is the only imaginable future.
That shift alone would have been politically unthinkable not very long ago.
So I don’t see this as “Canada versus America.”
I see it more as Canada slowly recalibrating after realizing...
the postwar assumptions underneath the relationship
may not be as stable as they once appeared.
Who cares americans are just a bunch of murdering terrorists. We don’t need that Tesla shit in Canada
I think a lot of Canadians are angry right now, especially with the political climate
and the economic pressure spilling across borders.
But it’s important to separate governments, corporations, and ordinary people
from each other.
Over 330 million Americans aren’t one single mindset any more than Canadians are.
As for products like Teslas or Chinese EVs,
that’s where the conversation gets more practical...
Canada has to decide what serves our long-term interests best...
affordability, manufacturing, data security, energy strategy,
jobs, infrastructure, and sovereignty.
That debate is legitimate.
But once discussions slide into treating entire populations as enemies,
the conversation usually stops being useful.
To that point, please keep in mind that Slotkin is a strongly anti-Trump Democrat with a history in the CIA; she knows a thing or two about how the Chinese do intelligence, I don't think she said what she said out of any kind of malice or intention to belittle Canada but out of concern that putting Chinese communications systems on your roads might not be as safe as you hope. (She strongly opposes them in the US, too.)
As long as you're going into the agreement with the awareness that China may turn out not to be a great partner, I think she'll be fine with you doing it.
And who knows? In a few years the demand for electric vehicles could be great enough on this side of the border for us to drop our opposition to them, too!
Agreed re Slotkin's concern: It is genuine.
But the only thing she seems to be missing (like almost every American), is that THEY DO IT TOO! How much of our cell phone/car navigation data is squirrelled off to some Apple/Google server? Or with the household, Apple & Amazon servers (with Siru/Alexa data). DOGE was the wake-up call about how Americans are just as good at spying on us as the Chinese are.
So being from Michigan, I know that she's worried about auto sector supply chains and what the threat of "new entrants" could mean to that (note that if we opt for either vendor for submarines, then we will see greater presence (assembly) or outright manufacturing of Hyundai, Audi, military/large-industrial vehicles, more EV batteries . . . . the list goes on!
. . . and the Chinese have hinted at making the EVs in Canada, too, if there seems to be permanent demand (and the BYD's sell for 1/2 the price of a Tesla and do the same things -- oh, and the Tesla, I'm sure, is spying on us as well!).
Good point about the US spying on us, too, although there was a time when I thought "us" was the good guys; never no more since DoGE . . .
And I think she's smarter than to think the "auto sector supply chain" is going to be saved somehow by keeping Chinese EVs out of Michigan: for all $rump's bluster about "bringing manufacturing back", I don't think he's invested a dime in our industries, so that's not happenin'.
That’s the part a lot of people are increasingly noticing, Grant...
modern surveillance capitalism didn’t exactly begin in Beijing.
Most people already carry around devices tied into American tech ecosystems collecting location history, voice data,
Search behaviour, shopping patterns, contacts, driving habits, biometrics, and behavioural profiles at industrial scale.
DOGE rattled people because it exposed just how interconnected data, state power, and private tech platforms have become inside the American system itself.
Which doesn’t invalidate concerns about Chinese systems...
it just complicates the moral framing of...
“our surveillance = normal”
“their surveillance = unacceptable.”
And yes, the industrial angle matters enormously too.
Michigan politicians are naturally going to think about automotive disruption, manufacturing jobs, supply chains,
and competitive pressure from lower-cost EV entrants.
That’s politics. Every country protects strategic industries when threatened.
The interesting part for Canada is the leverage question...
if foreign automakers start assembling or manufacturing here...
whether Korean, European, American, or Chinese...
that potentially shifts Canada from “customer” toward “participant” in the industrial ecosystem.
That’s a very different conversation economically.
But your final point is the one that really scrambles the debate...
People are increasingly comparing actual price-to-value ratios now.
If consumers see one EV costing dramatically less while offering similar functionality,
Governments eventually get squeezed between national security concerns, industrial policy, affordability pressures, and voter frustration.
And that balancing act is only going to get harder from here.
That’s a fair and balanced point, honestly.
And I think it’s important not to swing from “blind trust in the U.S.” to “blind trust in China,” because neither superpower operates primarily out of charity.
Every major state acts in its own strategic interests eventually.
The surveillance and data concerns around connected EV systems, communications infrastructure, mapping tech, and digital ecosystems are legitimate discussions...
especially in a world where vehicles are increasingly becoming rolling computers.
I also agree that Slotkin’s comments may have been intended more as a security warning than an insult.
Where Canadians reacted strongly, I think, was less the warning itself and more the broader context surrounding it...
being cautioned publicly about China while simultaneously watching Washington pursue its own negotiations and economic arrangements with China.
That contradiction is what people are responding to emotionally.
But strategically?
I think your framing is probably the healthiest one...
engage carefully,
stay aware,
diversify intelligently,
and avoid romanticizing any major power.
I'm not on board with the idea that "Washington [is pursuing] its own negotiations and economic arrangements with China". His Heinous is going there, and I feel certain he expects to teach Xi all about "the art of the deal", but I don't think for a minute he'll come away with anything more/better than what we have now.
But then, I'm convinced the reason we're mired in Iran is that Net-and-yahoo convinced $$trump that he'd get piles of money and the world's admiration for defeating Iran, when in fact all BeeBee wanted was cover for his genocide in Lebanon. So you can color me a skeptic on that point.