35 Comments
User's avatar
Mary Donato's avatar

So sad, he’s destroyed our country in just a few months😱🤯😡🤬🤮

djw's avatar

I think that was his [minions'] goal from the beginning, so they're right on target.

I'm just thrilled that the rest of the world is reacting the way it is. I won't expect them to be eager to help us out when this scourge is over, but it's nice to know there will be adults in the room who can cheer us on as we try to rebuild ourselves.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

They’re not just cheering from the sidelines.

They’re replacing the parts they used to rely on.

That’s a very different kind of support.

djw's avatar

Yeah, and that's what they *should* be doing. But I kind of feel like an orphan who might find solace that some grownup in my life who gives me reason to believe the world doesn't have to be awful. After my divorce, my son found a wrestling coach who was "there" for him, and the kid turned out to be a pretty great adult. If America can see Canada across the fence, maybe we can turn out okay, too.

Mary Donato's avatar

👌🏼👍🏼❗️

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

He didn’t destroy it overnight Mary.

He just gave everyone a reason to stop depending on it.

And that’s a much bigger problem.

djw's avatar

Bingo

Hans Boserup, Dr.jur. 🇩🇰's avatar

Fred

The framing is interesting — but also slightly misleading.

NATO didn’t “break” anything because NATO was never designed to be the instrument that solves conflicts like this. It is a defensive alliance, not a war-winning machine for complex, asymmetric or political wars.

What NATO did do — and continues to do — is exactly what it was built for:

to contain escalation, stabilise the theatre, and buy time.

That may look like “stopping” rather than “winning,” but that distinction matters. In modern conflict — especially against actors like Russia or Iran — the objective is rarely decisive victory. It is:

preventing wider war

denying strategic gains to the adversary

sustaining pressure over time

In that sense, NATO hasn’t failed. It has adapted to a reality where wars are no longer resolved in clean, decisive campaigns, but in prolonged contests of endurance, industry, and political cohesion.

If anything, the real issue is not that NATO “stopped short” —

it’s that many still expect it to behave like a 20th-century war machine in a 21st-century conflict environment.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Hans... I agree with your framing on NATO’s role.

It was never meant to “win” wars in the conventional sense.

It stabilizes, contains, and buys time... that’s exactly what it’s doing.

Where I think the shift is happening isn’t in NATO’s purpose… it’s in the industrial layer underneath it.

The alliance may still function as designed... but the supply chains supporting it are no longer centred in the U.S.

That’s the part quietly changing.

M.Wilson's avatar

Hope America catches on soon. They think they can vote their way out of bad judgment and all will be fine.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

You can vote out a government.

You can’t vote allies back into blind trust.

That part has to be earned again.

Kalyrn's avatar

You should never blindly trust anyone

Zoe's avatar

Another US pipe dream. So cocky. US is stuck in the fantasy of what could be over the reality of what is. While some voters in the US like bullies and scoff at expertise, the rest of the world sees that for what it is: being conned by cowboy macho individualism.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

This isn’t about personalities.

It’s about trust.

Once allies start designing around you instead of with you… that’s a structural shift, not a political one.

Northshore2025's avatar

At this point, I think the concept of the US withdrawing from NATO has to be taken seriously.

The US has demonstrated it doesn't understand the alliance's fundamental role -deterrence where possible, and unified action after verification that a member is attacked.

The demand for NATO's allies to back up the US unilateral strike on Iran, with no prior attack on US assets, and no prior consultation, has exposed the gap between what NATO has been for 70 years, and what the US now wants it to be.

So perhaps it's better the US withdraw, Europe to repossess all the military bases and re-arm, and Canada and other Nordic countries to add an Arctic Alliance to our mutual support treaties, to help fill the power vacuum.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

You’re describing the logical endpoint.

But we may not even need to get there.

If Europe and Canada can source, build, and coordinate their own defence systems, NATO becomes less “U.S.-led” without ever formally breaking apart.

That’s a slower shift... but a stickier one.

Colin Goodfellow's avatar

The Alliance of Democracies. Grow it.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Yes Colin... but with a twist.

It’s not just about shared values anymore.

It’s about shared capability... who can build the systems, not just talk about them.

Luc Fournier's avatar

Regarding the US 6th gen fighter (F47), the stinky orange said that the export version would be curtailed and probably have the same or even more restrictions than the F35. It would be better joining one of a few international teams developing a 6th gen fighter where there are no restrictions or veto from the US and retain IP over the aircraft and its components.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Agreed Luc... and we’re already seeing that shift.

Countries aren’t just asking “what’s the best jet?”

They’re asking “who controls it after we buy it?”

That changes procurement decisions fast.

Aocm🇨🇦's avatar

Project 2025 is the USA playbook, the rest of the world can carry on without it.

52% complete in 14 months with 34 months left for Americans to catch on

https://www.project2025.observer/en

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

U.S. policy debates matter inside the U.S.

Outside the U.S., the reaction is simpler...

Reduce exposure.

Build redundancy.

Move on.

That’s what we’re seeing unfold.

Mike Lowres RE 🇬🇧🇪🇺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇷's avatar

Could the potential loss of defence contracts be the reason Trump started with Iran or is that too cynical.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

It’s a fair question Mike... but probably not that direct.

There’s no solid evidence the war was about defence contracts.

What is real is this...

The war is exposing how isolated the U.S. has become... and that’s accelerating the shift away from American defence suppliers.

So it’s less “started for contracts”… and more “making the contract problem worse.”

Mike Lowres RE 🇬🇧🇪🇺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇷's avatar

Agreed there is no solid evidence of this, however other NATO members the traditional buyers of American weaponry are looking to keep the money inside Europe and extend that Canada, Trump told the other NATO members they had to increase defence expenditure, they are just not with American defence contractors.

Also if America supplies aircraft and other weaponry that needs American software updates and given Trump's tantrums why would you trust him to stop sending out the updates and making the stuff either obsolete or unuseable.

Linda McKenna's avatar

Why support the military engine of a country threatening your sovereignty on a constant basis. The threat is the USA.

Brian Scott's avatar

The F35 fighters come with a master off switch that the usa controls. And people think we need to still buy F35s!!!!?????? With a fucking lunatic like trump he could start an invasion and flip the off switch leavingCanada with no fighter jets!!! Fuck that and fuck the usa. Time for Canada to start taking care of our own defence as PM Carney is doing. Canada can no longer trust the usa. And even after the orange shit stain is gone, there is no guarantee that someone like trump, or even worse, will not get elected. So our caution, new defence course and lack of confidence and trust in the usa is very well placed

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

There’s no evidence the U.S. can just flip a switch and disable allied jets Brian.

But reliance on U.S. logistics, upgrades, and mission systems does give them influence.

That’s the real issue... and it’s driving the shift we’re seeing.

Brian Scott's avatar

Ok. But even still Canada would not have autonomy over maintenance upgrades from what I understand. I have read various stories, who knows what is right. I guess I fell for a fake news story. Can’t remember which news outlet now, CBC or CTV, as its been a while.

Linda McKenna's avatar

It was reported as security risk in Denmark as its population has created a political problem over its F35 supply contract.

The same political problem in Canada with recent polls showing Canadians are 72 % against the F35, even with the inter-operabiltiy requirements.

Linda McKenna's avatar

Absolutely. Impacts Denmark too and they publically regret their purchase of F35.

Jim Veinot's avatar

One wonders if Trump's use of tariffs to effect a protectionist economy is his mental first step to autarky. Like a mafia boss's declaration of "we don't need nobody" Trump projects his inner belief of victimization, all the while striking out to demonstrate his true virility. In any event, this behaviour pattern has certainly produced the expected response from slighted allies who are now saying "well, maybe we don't need you!" The result has been a collective protectionism, which may appear to be a conflict in terminology but on second reading, makes sense. Whatever the logic, a reduction of influence by the cowboy country is welcomed to a large extent, less fearfully because of the group engagement.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

There’s definitely a feedback loop Jim... in what you’re describing.

One side leans toward protectionism… the other side responds by building its own insulation.

So you end up with parallel systems forming... not total autarky, but less dependence on any single player.

That’s the shift we’re watching.

Jim Veinot's avatar

Yeah, desire for autarky is mainly Trump's mindset, his emotional defense to the world around him. This is common with victim thinkers; the rest of us know you can't live in a vacuum and expect pleasant social intercourse. Even on a bended knee his followers will never be totally trusted by a perpetual victim.

Richard Davis's avatar

The American military industrial complex must be freaking out, quite literally 100’s billions in lost sales.