Author Archives: Chris McBean

Unknown's avatar

About Chris McBean

Strategist, polyamorist, ergodox, permaculture & agroforestry hobbyist, craft ale & cider enthusiast, white settler in Canada of British descent; a wanderer who isn’t lost.

🛡️ NATO & Allied Countries Shifting Away from U.S. Defense Equipment

Posted on by
Reply

Several NATO and allied countries have recently rejected or are reconsidering U.S.-made military equipment in favor of European or domestic alternatives. This trend reflects a broader shift toward defense autonomy, industrial sovereignty, and reduced reliance on U.S. service contracts.

🇩🇰 Denmark

  • Air Defense: Opted for the Franco-Italian SAMP/T NG long-range system over the U.S.-made Patriot missile system, citing high costs and long delivery times. Denmark is also considering European alternatives like NASAMS, IRIS-T, and VL MICA for medium-range needs.
  • Arctic Exercises: Led the “Arctic Light 2025” military exercise in Greenland without U.S. participation, emphasizing regional leadership and reducing reliance on U.S. forces.

🇪🇸 Spain

  • Fighter Aircraft: Rejected U.S. F-35 proposals in favor of European options like the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), aiming to bolster European defense autonomy and reduce dependence on U.S. military technology.

🇵🇹 Portugal

  • Fighter Aircraft: Reconsidered plans to replace aging F-16s with U.S.-made F-35s, exploring European alternatives to enhance operational control and reduce long-term dependency on foreign suppliers.

🇩🇪 Germany

  • Air Defense: Prioritized domestic production and local sustainment for tanks, artillery, and aircraft, including the Leopard 2 tank upgrades and Eurofighter Typhoon programs, to maintain control over maintenance and modernization capacities.

🇳🇱 Netherlands

  • Naval Platforms: Emphasized European suppliers for submarines and frigates, negotiating co-production and local sustainment agreements to reduce reliance on U.S. shipyards.

🇳🇴 Norway

  • Fighter Jets & Patrol Aircraft: Pushed for domestic assembly lines and local maintenance hubs, limiting dependence on American contractors for lifecycle support.

🇮🇹 Italy

  • Naval & Aerospace Systems: Invested in domestic shipbuilding and aerospace industries, including the FREMM frigate and domestic drone programs, while seeking interoperability standards that avoid long-term U.S. service dependencies.

🇨🇦 Canada

  • Submarine Procurement: Rejected U.S. proposals for new submarines, opting instead for bids from Germany and South Korea to gain autonomy over maintenance, lifecycle upgrades, and operational decision-making.
  • Fighter Aircraft: Evaluating Swedish fighter jets with plans for domestic assembly and maintenance, aiming to reduce reliance on U.S. contractors.

🇫🇮 Finland

  • Military Cooperation: Despite broader U.S. plans to scale back military operations in parts of NATO’s eastern flank, Finland maintains that its military cooperation with the United States is not being reduced. Finnish Defence Minister Antti Hakkanen affirmed that the U.S. remains committed to deepening bilateral defense efforts.

🇫🇷 France & 🇮🇹 Italy

  • NATO Arms Deal: Opted out of a new NATO-led initiative to finance the delivery of U.S. weapons to Ukraine, signaling a preference for European solutions and a move towards greater defense autonomy.

🔄 Broader Trends Influencing These Shifts

  • Cost & Delivery Timelines: U.S. defense systems like the Patriot missile system often face long production backlogs and higher costs, prompting NATO allies to seek more timely and cost-effective European alternatives.
  • Industrial Sovereignty: Countries are increasingly prioritizing local or regional production and maintenance capabilities to maintain control over their military assets and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers.
  • Political Tensions: Diplomatic strains, such as disagreements over Arctic territories and defense spending, have influenced countries like Denmark to reconsider their reliance on U.S. defense equipment.
  • Strategic Autonomy: The desire for greater control over defense decisions and capabilities is driving NATO allies to explore European solutions that align with their national interests and security priorities.

Allies Reclaiming Autonomy: The Growing Shift Away from U.S.-Made Military Equipment

Posted on by
Reply

Across NATO and allied nations, governments are increasingly rejecting U.S. defense options or cancelling long-term contracts, favoring domestic or European alternatives that offer control over manufacturing, maintenance, and upgrades.

For decades, the United States has dominated the global defense market, especially among NATO allies. Its model, sell advanced platforms, then tie buyers into decades of maintenance, upgrades, and proprietary service, has been remarkably profitable and politically influential. But that model is under pressure. Increasingly, U.S. allies are saying no: rejecting American options, cancelling planned contracts, or shifting to alternatives that offer greater operational and industrial autonomy.

Spain provides a recent example. While the country had previously considered U.S.-made platforms to modernize its air force, Madrid has turned toward European options such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Future Combat Air System. Officials cited cost, supply chain control, and the desire to retain domestic and European industrial participation as key drivers. Similar reasoning is guiding Portugal, which has reconsidered its replacement programs for aging aircraft, leaning toward European-built fighters rather than committing to U.S.-supplied F-35s.

Denmark illustrates the trend in air defense. In its largest-ever defense procurement, the Danish government opted for the Franco-Italian SAMP-T NG long-range system over the U.S.-made Patriot, citing both cost and delivery time. Denmark is also reviewing medium-range options from European manufacturers, emphasizing local or regional production and maintenance. This choice reflects the dual desire to strengthen European defense capabilities while reducing reliance on U.S.-based service contracts.

Other NATO members are making comparable moves. Switzerland, historically neutral, has expressed reservations about joining long-term U.S. programs, including the F-35, instead evaluating European alternatives that allow for national control over lifecycle management. Norway has similarly emphasized local assembly and domestic sustainment for fighter and patrol aircraft. The Netherlands, Belgium, and Greece have all shown interest in European or domestic solutions for naval, air, and missile systems, explicitly seeking contracts that do not lock them into decades-long U.S. maintenance agreements.

These choices reflect a broader strategic and economic calculation. U.S.-made systems, while technologically advanced, often require buyers to accept a near-perpetual dependency on American contractors for upgrades, parts, and service. Allies are increasingly reluctant to cede that control, recognizing that operational autonomy and local industrial development are critical to national security. European manufacturers, by contrast, are offering co-production, local assembly, and technology transfer that allow countries to maintain both sovereignty and economic benefit from defense programs.

The implications for the U.S. defense industry are substantial. Losing planned contracts or having allies cancel or decline U.S.-made systems threatens billions in revenue, particularly from the lucrative long-term service and maintenance components. Strategically, it reduces Washington’s leverage: allies that control their own equipment are less subject to subtle influence through supply and upgrade dependencies. Over time, the cumulative effect could reshape the defense-industrial landscape in Europe and beyond, challenging the assumption that U.S.-supplied hardware will dominate allied inventories.

Canada, with its submarine program and proposed Swedish fighter deal, stands as the most prominent example, but it is hardly alone. Across Europe and NATO, governments are asking whether reliance on U.S. contractors for decades-long service agreements is compatible with modern defense priorities. The answer increasingly appears to be “no.” Allies want control over manufacturing, maintenance, and upgrades, and they are willing to bypass traditional U.S. options to achieve it.

In short, the U.S. model of “buy once, pay forever” is losing favor. NATO members and other allies are embracing autonomy, local industrial participation, and diversified procurement, signaling a shift that could reverberate across global defense markets for decades. The message is clear: even America’s closest partners are no longer content to surrender operational control and economic benefit for decades-long contracts that primarily serve U.S. industry.

Rediscovering Jett: A Stylish Neo-Noir Masterpiece

Posted on by
Reply

In the crowded landscape of television crime dramas, Jett stands out as a rare gem: an intoxicating blend of sleek visuals, sharp writing, and a powerhouse lead performance. Premiering on Cinemax in 2019, this nine-episode series, created by Sebastian Gutierrez, offers a fresh take on the heist genre, elevating it to an art form. Even on a rewatch, Jett demonstrates a remarkable ability to combine suspense, style, and character depth in ways few contemporary crime dramas achieve.

A Cinematic Aesthetic
From the very first frame, Jett captivates with its bold visual style. Cinematographer Cale Finot crafts a world drenched in neon hues, deep shadows, and rich textures, reminiscent of classic noir films. The lighting and composition are deliberate and cinematic, giving every scene a sense of immediacy and dramatic weight. The use of dynamic camera movements, precise framing, and occasional split-screen storytelling transforms each episode into a visually engaging experience, akin to watching a series of short, high-budget films. This aesthetic sophistication elevates what could have been a standard crime story into a fully immersive world, one that feels both stylish and dangerous at the same time.

A Script That Pops
Gutierrez’s writing is equally compelling, with dialogue that crackles with wit and tension. The series balances dark humor, high-stakes action, and nuanced character moments effortlessly. Every line feels purposeful, every twist is earned, and the pacing maintains a constant edge-of-your-seat energy. The narrative often weaves multiple storylines together, presenting a non-linear structure that rewards careful attention and repeated viewing. It’s a script that respects the audience’s intelligence, offering depth in its characterization while delivering thrills, suspense, and unexpected turns that keep viewers fully engaged.

Carla Gugino: A Tour de Force
At the heart of Jett is Carla Gugino’s mesmerizing performance as Daisy “Jett” Kowalski, a master thief reluctantly pulled back into a world she thought she had left behind. Gugino brings a rare combination of toughness, intelligence, and vulnerability to the role. Her physicality, subtle expressions, and emotional range create a character who is both formidable and relatable. Critics have rightly celebrated her performance as the anchor of the series, noting that Gugino elevates the show with her nuanced portrayal of a woman navigating loyalty, danger, and her own moral code.

A Cult Classic in the Making
Though its single-season run limited its reach, Jett has earned critical acclaim and cultivated a dedicated following. Its combination of visually stunning cinematography, razor-sharp writing, and a lead performance that commands attention makes it stand out in the modern television landscape. For viewers seeking a crime drama that merges style with substance, Jett is a must-watch—a series that proves even a short run can leave a lasting impression.

Why You Should Watch
In a television landscape crowded with crime dramas, Jett refuses to be just another series. Its cinematic flair, razor-sharp script, and Carla Gugino’s commanding performance combine to create a show that is as stylish as it is thrilling. Short, intense, and unforgettable, Jett proves that quality storytelling doesn’t need multiple seasons to make an impact. For fans of smart, edgy, and visually striking crime stories, this series is an absolute must-watch: a pulse-pounding ride that lingers long after the credits roll.

Canada and Mexico Forge Strategic Partnership: Implications for North America

Posted on by
Reply

On September 18, 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum signed a comprehensive strategic partnership in Mexico City. This agreement, covering 2025–2028, aims to deepen economic, security, and environmental collaboration between Canada and Mexico, explicitly anticipating the 2026 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). While the immediate bilateral effects are evident, the agreement also carries broader implications for the three major North American economies: Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

Scope and Focus of the Agreement
At its core, the agreement establishes a four-year bilateral action plan encompassing four pillars: prosperity, mobility and social inclusion, security, and environmental sustainability. Economically, it focuses on expanding trade and investment in infrastructure, energy, agriculture, and health, while jointly developing critical infrastructure such as ports, rail links, and energy corridors. In security, it aims to strengthen border control and combat transnational crime. The environmental and sustainability component is particularly notable, signaling both countries’ intent to collaborate on climate mitigation and resource management.

Strategic Context
The timing of this agreement is significant. Earlier in 2025, both Canada and Mexico faced tariffs and trade frictions with the United States, creating a strategic impetus to solidify bilateral cooperation. This partnership may serve as a hedge against future unilateral U.S. trade measures and positions both nations more strongly for upcoming negotiations surrounding the USMCA review in 2026. By consolidating economic, security, and environmental frameworks bilaterally, Canada and Mexico signal that they can act decisively and collaboratively independent of U.S. alignment, while still committing to trilateral engagement.

Implications for Canada
For Canada, the agreement represents a proactive diversification of trade and investment partnerships within North America. Beyond the U.S., Mexico is an increasingly significant market for Canadian goods and services, particularly in energy and infrastructure. By reinforcing bilateral economic ties, Canada gains leverage in upcoming USMCA discussions and reduces its vulnerability to unilateral U.S. trade policy shifts. Moreover, collaboration on climate and sustainability initiatives positions Canada as a leader in cross-border environmental governance, complementing its domestic commitments.

Implications for Mexico
For Mexico, the agreement strengthens its economic and geopolitical options. Mexico has historically balanced trade and diplomatic relationships with the United States while seeking alternative partners. Formalizing a strategic partnership with Canada enhances Mexico’s negotiating position with the U.S., particularly as the USMCA review approaches. Joint infrastructure projects and investment commitments also promise to accelerate Mexico’s industrial and energy development, potentially boosting domestic employment and technology transfer.

Implications for the United States
For the United States, the Canada-Mexico agreement presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, stronger integration between Canada and Mexico may facilitate smoother trilateral cooperation, reducing friction in cross-border commerce and security. On the other hand, it could limit U.S. leverage in bilateral negotiations with either country if Canada and Mexico present unified positions during the USMCA review. The U.S. may need to consider the strategic consequences of any unilateral trade actions in light of this growing North American solidarity.

The Canada-Mexico strategic partnership represents a calculated, forward-looking approach to regional stability and prosperity. While the agreement strengthens bilateral ties, it also reshapes the dynamics of North American relations, providing both Canada and Mexico with enhanced economic and strategic agency. For the United States, it signals a more integrated northern and southern neighbor bloc, emphasizing the importance of collaborative rather than confrontational engagement. As the 2026 USMCA review approaches, all three nations will likely navigate a more complex and interdependent landscape, where trilateral cooperation becomes not only beneficial but essential.

Sources:
• Reuters. Canada and Mexico committed to shared partnership with US, Carney says. September 18, 2025. link
• Politico. Mexico and Canada make nice ahead of high-stakes trade talks. September 18, 2025. link
• Global News. Carney, Sheinbaum sign strategic partnership to boost trade, security, environment. September 18, 2025. link

The Return of Britain’s Railways: A Justified Journey Back to Public Hands

Posted on by
Reply

Few issues in the United Kingdom’s domestic infrastructure provoke as much consistent frustration, and cautious optimism, as the performance of the national railway system. After more than three decades of privatized operation, mounting failures in service quality, rising costs, and structural inefficiencies have prompted a significant policy shift. The renationalization of Britain’s train services marks the gradual undoing of a deeply ideological experiment that has fallen short of its promises.

This shift is not driven by nostalgia, but by necessity.

Background and Rationale for Renationalization
The privatization of British Rail in the mid-1990s was framed as a path to modernity. Proponents argued that market competition would drive efficiency, reduce government spending, and improve customer service. Instead, the result was a fragmented system comprised of multiple Train Operating Companies (TOCs), overseen by various regulatory bodies, while infrastructure was handed to a separate private firm, Railtrack—an entity whose eventual failure and replacement by Network Rail in 2002 was an early indicator of deeper systemic flaws.

Despite significant taxpayer subsidies, performance metrics across the privatized rail network began to deteriorate by the 2010s. Delays, overcrowding, high fares, and poor coordination became routine issues. Government spending on the sector did not decline; instead, public funds increasingly subsidized private profits. By 2020, annual state support exceeded £7 billion.

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the system’s fragility. As passenger numbers collapsed, the government assumed emergency control over all franchises, effectively nationalizing operations under temporary measures. This moment of crisis exposed the private sector’s dependence on public backing and underscored the need for structural reform.

Recent Developments and Implementation
Renationalization in Britain has proceeded in stages, marked by pragmatism rather than ideological confrontation. Several poorly performing franchises, such as Northern, Southeastern, and the East Coast Main Line, were brought under the control of the government’s Operator of Last Resort (OLR). This allowed continuity of service while avoiding legal entanglements with private firms.

A formal framework was introduced with the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, passed under the Labour government. This legislation allows passenger services to be brought under public control as contracts with private operators expire. In May 2025, South Western Railway (SWR) became the first operator transitioned under this new legal mechanism. Other operators, including Greater Anglia and c2c, are expected to follow before the end of the year.

This incremental approach avoids costly buyouts and is designed to be financially and administratively sustainable. Most passenger services in England are projected to return to public ownership by 2027.

The Role of Great British Railways
A central element of the reform effort is the establishment of Great British Railways (GBR), a single public entity that will unify track and train operations, long-term planning, fare structures, and accountability. The GBR model replaces the franchising system with a concession-based framework, where the state retains fare revenue and strategic control while outsourcing operations under tightly managed contracts.

GBR is not intended to replicate the British Rail of the past. It reflects modern best practices, taking cues from integrated public systems in Germany, Japan, and other high-performing countries. The goal is to streamline operations, enable through-ticketing, and restore strategic coherence to rail governance.

Implementation, however, has encountered delays. Structural changes, legislative hurdles, and coordination challenges have slowed GBR’s rollout. Industry stakeholders continue to press for greater clarity and faster progress.

Challenges and Caveats
While the rationale for public control is widely supported, several challenges remain. Technical difficulties have marred the rollout of SWR’s new Arterio fleet, due to manufacturing delays and labour disputes. Industrial relations require careful management to avoid disruption and foster long-term cooperation.

Fares remain a sensitive issue. Although public ownership may improve value for money, there is as yet no guarantee of fare reductions. Without visible improvements in affordability and service reliability, public support, though currently strong, may erode.

Operational excellence will be critical. Renationalization removes profit motives but does not in itself guarantee efficiency, innovation, or customer satisfaction. Robust governance, sustained investment, and clear performance targets are essential for long-term success.

Public and Political Sentiment
Public opinion has consistently favoured renationalization. A 2024 Ipsos poll found that 54% of Britons support the return of rail services to public ownership. The policy aligns with broader desires for a reliable, affordable, and accountable public transport system, particularly in the context of climate commitments and regional economic development.

Politically, the approach adopted avoids the pitfalls of abrupt, combative state intervention. By allowing contracts to expire and absorbing operations through established legal mechanisms, the process has proceeded with minimal disruption.

A Measured Return to Public Responsibility
The renationalization of Britain’s railways represents a strategic recalibration of transport policy. After decades of dysfunction under fragmented private control, the reassertion of public oversight is both justified and overdue.

This is not a reversal for its own sake, nor a rejection of innovation or partnership. It is a reassertion of the principle that essential public infrastructure should serve the common good, not the balance sheets of corporate shareholders.

The coming years will determine whether this vision can be translated into a rail system that is reliable, integrated, and equitable. If managed well, the return to public ownership may yet become one of the most important and popular infrastructure reforms in modern British history.

Sources:
• “New dawn for rail as South Western services return to public hands,” GOV.UK, May 25, 2025. Link
• “Great British Railways and the public ownership programme,” GOV.UK, May 25, 2025. Link
• “Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024,” GOV.UK, November 28, 2024. Link
• “Public Attitudes towards rail nationalisation and strike action,” Ipsos, May 2, 2024. Link
• “SWR to be first train UK operator to be renationalised under Labour plan,” Reuters, December 4, 2024. Link
• “Great British Railways Takes Major Step Forward: 2025,” Rail Industry Connect, May 29, 2025. Link

Losing the Diplomatic High Ground: America’s Isolation on Palestine

Posted on by
Reply

The international recognition of Palestine by Canada, Australia, and now the United Kingdom represents more than a symbolic act. It is a tectonic shift in global diplomacy that leaves Israel increasingly isolated. But perhaps the greater casualty is the United States, which finds its credibility and diplomatic standing downgraded by clinging to unconditional support for Israel in defiance of its closest allies. For Washington, the erosion of moral and strategic authority is becoming harder to disguise.

For decades, American foreign policy has rested on two pillars: an unwavering defense of Israel and a claim to universal principles of democracy, human rights, and international law. These pillars are now in conflict. As humanitarian conditions in Gaza dominate global headlines and images of suffering circulate daily, the United States insists that Israel’s military actions fall within the bounds of self-defense. Yet its closest allies no longer accept that narrative. By moving to recognize Palestine, Canada, Australia, and the U.K. are declaring that the humanitarian and political costs of Israel’s occupation and military campaigns can no longer be justified. In doing so, they implicitly rebuke Washington’s stance and downgrade America’s claim to moral leadership.

The credibility gap is stark. In London, Ottawa, and Canberra, leaders framed recognition of Palestine as a step toward justice, peace, and accountability. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized that recognition was both a matter of principle and of practical necessity for a two-state solution. Canadian and Australian leaders voiced similar reasoning, pointing to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the futility of endless deferrals of Palestinian statehood. In Washington, by contrast, the Biden administration maintains that recognition should only come after negotiations, a formula that has effectively stalled for three decades while Israeli settlement expansion continued unchecked. To many observers abroad, the U.S. position now looks like obstruction rather than leadership.

The diplomatic costs of this divergence are real. In forums such as the United Nations and the G20, the United States will find itself increasingly out of step not only with traditional critics in the Global South but with its own allies in the Anglosphere. Where once Washington could count on Canada or the U.K. to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of Israel, it now risks looking like the last holdout defending a morally untenable status quo. That weakens American leverage on other issues, from rallying support for Ukraine against Russia to building coalitions in the Indo-Pacific to counter China. Allies may privately question why they should follow Washington’s lead on those fronts if the U.S. refuses to apply its professed values consistently.

At home, the contradictions are becoming sharper. Public opinion in the United States has shifted markedly, especially among younger Americans, who are far more sympathetic to Palestinians than their parents’ generation. Within the Democratic Party, calls for conditioning military aid to Israel or pressing harder for humanitarian access in Gaza are growing louder. Recognition moves by allies give these voices new legitimacy. If Canada and the U.K., two of Washington’s closest partners, can recognize Palestine, progressives ask, why can’t the U.S.? This deepens the political fault lines at home, with Republicans portraying recognition as rewarding terrorism while Democrats remain divided.

The broader danger is that the United States undermines its own strategic role as a credible broker in the Middle East. For decades, Washington has claimed to be the only power capable of mediating peace, precisely because of its unique leverage over Israel. But if the U.S. remains the only major Western democracy refusing to accept Palestinian statehood, it risks forfeiting that position. The European Union, or even a coalition of Arab states working with global partners, could step into the vacuum. Meanwhile, China and Russia eagerly exploit the perception of American hypocrisy, casting themselves as champions of Palestinian rights to gain influence across the Arab world and the wider Global South.

Washington still has choices. It can double down on its current course, shielding Israel diplomatically and vetoing recognition measures in international bodies. That would preserve its role as Israel’s protector but at the cost of deepening isolation and accelerating its decline in moral authority. Alternatively, it can begin to align more closely with its allies, signaling openness to Palestinian statehood while maintaining Israel’s security. Such a shift would not be politically easy, but it would restore some credibility and help rebuild American leadership. A third path lies in leveraging its support for Israel to demand concessions: humanitarian access, restraint in settlements, genuine negotiation. This would require a level of assertiveness toward the Netanyahu government that Washington has so far lacked.

The choice matters because America’s global position is at stake. Recognition of Palestine by Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is not just a rebuke of Israel, it is a rebuke of Washington’s failure to adapt to changing realities. The longer the United States clings to its lonely defense of Israel’s current policies, the more it downgrades its own diplomatic standing. Superpowers do not stay superpowers by ignoring their allies, and moral leadership cannot be maintained when it is visibly contradicted by one’s closest friends.

The United States once held the diplomatic high ground by presenting itself as both Israel’s ally and a defender of universal values. That balance has been lost. If Washington does not recalibrate soon, it risks becoming a diminished power: a superpower in name, but isolated, distrusted, and out of step with the very countries that once formed the backbone of its alliances. Recognition of Palestine is a turning point — not only for Israel and the Palestinians, but for America’s place in the world.

References
• Associated Press. “UK recognizes Palestinian state, joining Australia and Canada.” AP News. September 2025. Link
• Associated Press. “Canada joins push to recognize Palestinian statehood.” AP News. August 2025. Link
• The Australian. “Australia, UK and Canada join to recognise Palestine.” The Australian. August 2025. Link
• Angus Reid Institute. “Most Canadians believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” Angus Reid. September 2025. Link
• Times of Israel. “Israel mulling halt to security ties with UK if it recognizes Palestine.” Times of Israel. August 2025. Link
• World Policy Hub. “A historic shift: Why Europe is moving toward recognizing the state of Palestine.” World Policy Hub. August 2025. Link

Donald Trump’s Canadian Problem

Posted on by
Reply

A new survey released earlier this month offers a revealing glimpse into how Canadians view Donald Trump’s presidency, and the results are as decisive as they are sobering. The polling, conducted September 5–12, 2025 among 1,614 Canadians, asked respondents whether they approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as President of the United States. The breakdown by party support tells a clear story: Canadians overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump, regardless of partisan affiliation.

Among Liberals, an astonishing 99 percent disapprove, leaving a mere one percent in support. The New Democrats mirror this almost exactly, with 99 percent disapproval and just one percent approval. Green Party supporters follow close behind at 98 percent disapproving and 2 percent approving. Even Bloc Québécois voters, often unpredictable in their alignment, reject Trump by 93 percent to 7 percent.

These numbers show a remarkable national consensus, across progressive and nationalist lines alike, that Trump is fundamentally out of step with Canadian values. With one glaring exception. Among Conservative supporters, 45 percent approve of Trump, while 55 percent disapprove. That means nearly half of Conservative voters in this country are willing to line up behind one of the most polarizing figures in global politics.

This divergence is striking. The data shows a Canada almost united in its rejection of Trumpism, with Conservatives standing as the outliers. If we think of this not as abstract polling but as a snapshot of political culture, it becomes clear that the Conservative Party is grappling with a profound tension.

For the majority of Canadians, Trump represents everything they do not want in a leader: brash nationalism, disdain for institutions, transactional diplomacy, and an open hostility toward climate action. Canada’s self-image is one of consensus, moderation, and multilateralism, and Trump’s style cuts directly against that grain. It is little surprise then that Liberals, New Democrats, Greens, and Bloc voters reject him almost unanimously.

But nearly half of Conservatives see something different in Trump. They see a political figure who fights against what they perceive as “elites,” who speaks in blunt, sometimes brutal terms about immigration, cultural change, and national identity, and who promises to roll back the tide of progressive reform. For these voters, admiration of Trump is less about the technical details of his policy record and more about his role as a cultural symbol. Supporting him signals a desire to push Canadian politics in a harder, more populist direction.

This matters because Canadian Conservatives cannot easily ignore those numbers. A party with nearly half its base aligned sympathetically with Trump is inevitably influenced by that worldview. Yet the same data shows the broader Canadian electorate is not only uninterested in Trumpism, it is actively repulsed by it. When 99 percent of Liberals and New Democrats disapprove, 98 percent of Greens disapprove, and even 93 percent of Bloc voters disapprove, the lesson is clear: any Conservative strategy that tries to import Trump’s politics wholesale will run up against a wall of national resistance.

That leaves Conservatives in a bind. Court the Trump-sympathetic faction too aggressively, and they risk alienating the vast majority of Canadians who will never accept that style of politics. But turn away from it too decisively, and they risk fracturing their own base, where that 45 percent approval rating represents a large, vocal, and motivated bloc. It is the Canadian version of the dilemma Republicans themselves face in the United States: balancing the energy of the Trump base against the broader electorate’s distaste for him.

The deeper implication of this poll is that Canadian political culture is becoming increasingly entangled with the culture wars of the United States. That nearly half of Conservative supporters here look favorably on Trump is not an accident; it is the result of years of shared media consumption, online communities, and ideological cross-pollination. Canadian Conservatives watch Fox News, follow American conservative influencers, and engage in the same debates about “woke politics,” immigration, and freedom as their American counterparts. In that sense, Trump’s shadow stretches across the border, shaping not just U.S. politics but the fault lines within Canada’s right.

For the rest of Canada, this polling is a reminder of just how far apart our political tribes are drifting. On one side, overwhelming consensus against Trumpism, reflecting confidence in Canada’s more moderate, multilateral, and socially inclusive traditions. On the other, a significant portion of Conservatives willing to buck the national consensus in favor of an imported populist model.

The divide is not just about Donald Trump himself, it is about what he represents. For most Canadians, he symbolizes chaos, division, and a brand of politics fundamentally alien to our values. For nearly half of Conservatives, he symbolizes resistance to cultural liberalism, elite consensus, and globalist institutions. That chasm of perception tells us more about Canadian politics in 2025 than any single election poll.

The numbers are clear. Donald Trump may never be on a Canadian ballot, but his influence is already shaping our political landscape. And if this polling is any indication, Canada’s Conservatives are out of alignment with the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens. The question is whether they double down on that path, or find a way back toward a politics that actually speaks to the broad Canadian mainstream.

Elbows Up: How Canada’s Cooling Ties With America Expose U.S. Insecurity

Posted on by
Reply

With Canadian travel, spending, and goodwill toward the United States in steep decline, Washington’s defensive tone reveals a superpower under pressure and struggling to cope.

In recent months, the cross-border relationship between Canada and the United States has come under an unusual strain. What was once seen as one of the closest, most dependable partnerships in the world is now marked by tensions over trade, culture, and public perception. Data shows Canadians are spending less on American goods, traveling less often to the U.S., and expressing rising skepticism about their southern neighbor. Against this backdrop, the American response has been marked not by calm confidence, but by a defensive edge: an insecurity that suggests Washington is feeling the pressure and coping badly.

The tone was set when U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra accused Canadians of harboring an “elbows up” attitude toward his country. Speaking to reporters, Hoekstra complained that Canadian leaders and the media were fanning what he called “anti-American sentiment” and warned against framing ongoing trade disputes as a “war.” His words revealed just how sensitive U.S. officials have become about Canada’s growing assertiveness. Where past American diplomats might have dismissed Canadian criticism as the grumblings of a junior partner, Hoekstra’s defensive language betrayed a sense of vulnerability.

If the rhetoric sounded strained, the economic numbers were even more alarming for Washington. Canadian travel to the United States, long a reliable driver of border-state economies, has fallen sharply. According to industry data, cross-border car trips by Canadians dropped by more than a third year-over-year in August 2025, with similar declines in road travel overall. Air bookings are also down, as Canadians increasingly avoid American destinations. Analysts warn that even a 10 percent fall in Canadian travel represents a loss of over US$2 billion in U.S. tourism spending, affecting thousands of jobs in hotels, restaurants, and retail along the border.

Nor is the pullback limited to tourism. Surveys indicate Canadians are choosing to buy fewer American goods, opting instead for domestic or third-country alternatives whenever possible. Retailers and importers report declining sales of U.S. products in sectors ranging from consumer electronics to clothing. The “buy Canadian” mood, once a marginal theme, has gone mainstream. These choices, multiplied across millions of households, amount to a quiet but powerful act of economic resistance, one that chips away at America’s largest export market.

For the United States, the twin shocks of declining Canadian tourism and shrinking demand for U.S. goods are more than economic nuisances. They strike at the heart of America’s self-image as Canada’s indispensable partner. When Canadians spend less, travel less, and look elsewhere for their needs, it signals a cultural cooling that U.S. officials have little experience confronting. Historically, American policymakers could take for granted that Canadians would continue to flow across the border for shopping trips, vacations, or work, while Canadian governments would swallow irritants in the name of preserving harmony. That assumption no longer holds.

The American response, however, has been reactive rather than reflective. Instead of acknowledging Canadian frustrations, whether over tariffs, trade disputes, or political rhetoric, U.S. officials have scolded Ottawa for being too combative. By objecting to the term “trade war,” by lecturing Canadians about their “attitude,” Washington has reinforced the perception that it neither understands nor respects Canada’s grievances. The tone has become one of deflection: the problem, U.S. diplomats suggest, is not American policy, but Canadian sensitivity.

This defensiveness has left Washington exposed. It reveals that, beneath the rhetoric of confidence, U.S. officials recognize that Canada’s resistance carries real consequences. With fewer Canadians traveling south, U.S. border states lose billions in revenue. With Canadian households buying less from U.S. suppliers, American exporters face measurable losses. And with Canadian leaders willing to frame disputes in sharp terms, U.S. diplomats find themselves on the back foot, struggling to preserve an image of partnership.

For Canada, this shift represents a moment of self-assertion. By spending less in the U.S. and leaning into domestic pride, Canadians are signaling that friendship with America cannot be assumed, it must be earned and respected. For the United States, it represents an uncomfortable reality: even its closest ally is no longer willing to automatically defer.

In the end, the story is less about Canadian hostility than about American fragility. A confident superpower would shrug off criticism, listen carefully, and adjust course. What we see instead is irritation, defensiveness, and rhetorical overreach. By lashing out at Canada’s “elbows up” attitude, Washington has confirmed what the numbers already show: it is under pressure, it is losing ground, and it is coping badly.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

Week of September 13–19, 2025

Another week of sports shocks, economic shifts, and global moments. Below are five items that turned heads between Saturday, September 13 and Friday, September 19, 2025. Each item is date-checked and drawn from primary reporting so you can follow the facts and the context.

⚽ Canada ends New Zealand’s World Cup dominance to reach final

On September 19 Canada defeated defending champions New Zealand 34-19 in the Women’s Rugby World Cup semi final at Ashton Gate, booking a spot in the final for only the second time in the nation’s history. Why it matters: The result breaks a decade of New Zealand dominance, underlines the rise of Canada’s women’s program, and sets the stage for a historic final.

💷 UK borrowing surges and the pound weakens amid budget pressures

In mid September government borrowing rose well above forecasts, pushing August borrowing to its highest level in years. The pound weakened as markets digested the higher deficit and the risk of tougher fiscal measures. Why it matters: Higher borrowing raises questions for autumn budget planning and could force policy adjustments that affect growth and household budgets.

🧮 S&P Global updates show mixed growth with regional divergence

The September economic outlook from S&P Global revised growth up for economies such as the United States, Japan, Brazil and India while downgrading forecasts for Canada, Germany and Russia. Inflation remains uneven globally. Why it matters: The patchwork outlook changes the balance of global risks and opportunities, influencing trade, investment and policy choices.

📈 FAANG and AI stocks push markets higher as Fed cut odds rise

Tech giants and AI-related firms led gains during the week as investors continued to price a nearer Federal Reserve easing. The market rotation highlighted renewed appetite for growth names. Why it matters: Shifting expectations about monetary policy affect asset valuations, capital flows and corporate funding decisions.

🔭 Near-Earth asteroid 2025 FA22 made a safe flyby and was closely tracked

The object known as 2025 FA22, estimated between 130 and 290 meters, passed safely on September 18. Observatories used the close approach to refine orbital data and practice planetary defence procedures. Why it matters: Even large near-Earth objects can be monitored and ruled out as threats, which builds confidence in detection and response systems.

Closing thoughts: This week mixed sporting triumph and market optimism with sober economic readings and planetary vigilance. As these stories unfold they will shape policy decisions, investment priorities and public conversation. We will keep tracking developments and bringing you the five things worth your attention each week.

Sources

The Double Standard: Blocking AI While Deploying AI

Posted on by
Reply

In an era when artificial intelligence threatens to displace traditional journalism, a glaring contradiction has emerged: news organizations that block AI crawlers from accessing their content are increasingly using AI to generate the very content they deny to AI. This move not only undermines the values of transparency and fairness, but also exposes a troubling hypocrisy in the media’s engagement with AI.

Fortifying the Gates Against AI
Many established news outlets have taken concrete steps to prevent AI from accessing their content. As of early 2024, over 88 percent of top news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, were blocking AI data-collection bots such as OpenAI’s GPTBot via their robots.txt files. Echoing these moves, a Reuters Institute report found that nearly 80 percent of prominent U.S. news organizations blocked OpenAI’s crawlers by the end of 2023, while roughly 36 percent blocked Google’s AI crawler.

These restrictions are not limited to voluntary technical guidelines. Cloudflare has gone further, blocking known AI crawlers by default and offering publishers a “Pay Per Crawl” model, allowing access to their content only under specific licensing terms. The intent is clear: content creators want to retain control, demand compensation, and prevent unlicensed harvesting of their journalism.

But Then They Use AI To Generate Their Own Content
While these publishers fortify their content against external AI exploitation, they increasingly turn to AI internally to produce articles, summaries, and other content. This shift has real consequences: jobs are being cut and AI-generated content is being used to replace human-created journalism.
• Reach plc, publisher of Mirror, Express, and others, recently announced a restructuring that places 600 jobs at risk, including 321 editorial positions, as it pivots toward AI-driven formats like video and live content.
• Business Insider CEO Barbara Peng confirmed that roughly 21 percent of the staff were laid off to offset declines in search traffic, while the company shifts resources toward AI-generated features such as automated audio briefings.
• CNET faced backlash after it published numerous AI-generated stories under staff bylines, some containing factual errors. The fallout led to corrections and a renewed pushback from newsroom employees.

The Hypocrisy Unfolds
This dissonance, blocking AI while deploying it, lies at the heart of the hypocrisy. On one hand, publishers argue for content sovereignty: preventing AI from freely ingesting and repurposing their work. On the other hand, they quietly harness AI for their own ends, often reducing staffing under the pretense of innovation or cost-cutting.

This creates a scenario in which:
AI is denied access to public content, while in-house AI is trusted with producing public-facing content.
Human labor is dismissed in the name of progress, even though AI is not prevented from tapping into the cultural and journalistic capital built over years.
Control and compensation arguments are asserted to keep AI out, yet the same AI is deployed strategically to reshape newsroom economics.

This approach fails to reconcile the ethical tensions it embodies. If publishers truly value journalistic integrity, transparency, and compensation, then applying those principles selectively, accepting them only when convenient, is disingenuous. The news media’s simultaneous rejection and embrace of AI reflect a transactional, rather than principled, stance.

A Path Forward – or a Mirage?
Some publishers are demanding fair licensing models, seeking to monetize AI access rather than simply deny it. The emergence of frameworks like the Really Simple Licensing (RSL) standard allows websites to specify terms, such as royalties or pay-per-inference charges, in their robots.txt, aiming for a more equitable exchange between AI firms and content creators.

Still, that measured approach contrasts sharply with using AI to cut costs internally, a strategy that further alienates journalists and erodes trust in media institutions.

Integrity or Expedience?
The juxtaposition of content protection and AI deployment in newsrooms lays bare a cynical calculus: AI is off-limits when others use it, but eminently acceptable when it serves internal profit goals. This selective embrace erodes the moral foundation of journalistic institutions and raises urgent questions:
• Can publishers reconcile the need for revenue with the ethical imperatives of transparency and fairness?
• Will the rapid rise of AI content displace more journalists than it empowers?
• And ultimately, can media institutions craft coherent policies that honor both their creators and the audience’s right to trustworthy news

Perhaps there is a path toward licensing frameworks and responsible AI use that aligns with journalistic values, but as long as the will to shift blame, “not us scraping, but us firing”, persists, the hypocrisy remains undeniable.