• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Trump's legacy

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Part 2

    Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.

    On plurilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we're forming buyers’ clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we're cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyper-scalers.

    This is not naive multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work – issues by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together.

    In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.

    What it's doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture, on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

    Argue, the middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

    But I'd also say that great powers, great powers can afford for now to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.

    But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

    This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination. In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice – compete with each other for favour, or to combine to create a third path with impact.

    We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together – which brings me back to Havel.

    What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?

    First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is – a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.

    It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

    It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion – that's building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government's immediate priority.

    And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence, it's a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

    So Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent… we also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.

    Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but.. A partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

    And we have something else. We have a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

    We are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation.

    The powerful have their power.

    But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.


    That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us. Thank you very much.
    "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Paddy View Post
      The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied – the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy, in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.

      And this impulse is understandable. A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself, has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

      But let's be clear eyed about where this leads.

      A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable. And there is another truth. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.
      Nice speech, I hope he is right. Obama made lovely speeches too, that will be his legacy, changed f all though.

      But this idea of the rise of "middle powers" as the USA withdraws from its role as the global superpower is pretty dangerous. Its basically what the world looked like in the 1920s and 30s, with middle powers building up their navies in an accelerating arms race.

      Its not what Carney is suggesting should happen, he is talking about cooperation being the way forward - but as someone posted earlier, institutions don't really matter; the League of Nations failed to stop that process from unfolding.

      Last edited by willendure; 21 January 2026, 23:01.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by malvolio View Post
        Just been reading the reports on his speech to Davos. Most of it seems to have been incomprehensible, but there was one clear point, if I may paraphrase:

        - "Right now we need Greenland to act as a defensive cover for the USA. Right now I can move as many troops and other materiel into Greenland as I want, and we have had that ability since 1952. So clearly I need to acquire Greenland (or was it Iceland...?) so I can move in as many troops and other materiel as I want. And I'll throw as many toys out of the pram as I can to get it..."

        So clearly, he either terminally ignorant or has no idea of reality. Or both.


        As for the Starmer/Trump legacy debate, that is clear: Starmer will be remembered for f***ing up the UK, Trump for f***ing up the Western hemisphere.
        It makes no sense. If there are troops in Greenland they are in the wrong place. Also Denmark has supported any and all US military activity there since WW2.

        I think the North Pole is one of the most strategic places in the world, because its the most effective location to site missile defence and early warning systems but... that can be done without owning it.

        Nope. This is just about having something to pick a fight with Europe over.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by malvolio View Post
          As for the Starmer/Trump legacy debate, that is clear: Starmer will be remembered for f***ing up the UK, Trump for f***ing up the Western hemisphere.
          aye, the tory's would do better. - right you are.
          He who Hingeth aboot, Getteth Hee Haw. https://forums.contractoruk.com/core...ies/smokin.gif

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by sadkingbilly View Post

            aye, the tory's would do better. - right you are.
            Jeez, change the record. Or stop reading the Guardian.
            Blog? What blog...?

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by malvolio View Post

              Jeez, change the record. Or stop reading the Guardian.
              aye, - Torygraph here i come.................
              He who Hingeth aboot, Getteth Hee Haw. https://forums.contractoruk.com/core...ies/smokin.gif

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by sadkingbilly View Post

                aye, - Torygraph here i come.................
                The old Tories are gone (including Jenrick and a few other failures), either to Reform or out on their ear at the last election. Badenoch and team are proposing positive ideas if they get back in - which is doubtful as things stand. But if she can keep the rabble in line and kill off their mad focus on sacking anyone with a higher rank in the party than their own, they may yet surprise us.

                We may well end up with a Reform-led government or coalition, but their popularity is fading and they are yet to produce a workable, comprehensive manifesto as opposed to a pile of dog-whistle announcements.

                Labour haven't a cat in hells' chance at the next election but could muster a left wing coalition (with the idiot Zac as kingmaker).

                But that is nothing to do with my opinion of Starmer's abilities, such as they are, and the damage they are causing. Almost regardless of who gets in next time, they cannot be any worse.

                And there are more than two newspapers out there, some of which report stuff properly.
                Blog? What blog...?

                Comment


                  #38
                  It's either the triumph of hope over experience or Doomed I tell ye, dooooooomed. <- Private Fraser mode.
                  When the fun stops, STOP.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by DoctorStrangelove View Post
                    It's either the triumph of hope over experience or Doomed I tell ye, dooooooomed. <- Private Fraser mode.
                    Hope is about all I have left. At my age I doubt I'll be around long enough to see today's bollocks put right...
                    Blog? What blog...?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by sadkingbilly View Post

                      aye, the tory's would do better. - right you are.
                      I agree. You could say Starmer is destroying the UK and Trump the west. Or you could realize that these are just the people who got into power after the damage was already done. Doesn't mean they are going to fix it though.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X