“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.”
I honestly don't get what point you're trying to make. He said 'old relationship' of tight security cooperation is over. That means the particular form and style the defence relationship followed in the past, as this post discusses.
And yet clearly some sort of relationship continues, so logically there must be a new relationship, even if undefined. So maybe its nuance that is hard, not reading ??
I would argue he is far from a minor figure. He is considered Trump’s eyes and ears on Hegseth, and has been the most hawkish policy official in the Pentagon. He’s who has cleaned house of the Generals who won’t do Trump’s bidding. When he speaks, he’s carrying out a White House strategy. Likely from Stephen Miller, but I can’t prove that.
Great perspective. I know it is early doors, but what is your sense: is this a hiatus or an ending? Would a post-Trump administration re-visit this decision?
I do wonder if Colby has revived one of Trump’s "old hits" in the hopes of getting on his good side, angling for a promotion in the event Trump decides to make Hegseth the sacrificial scapegoat for how the war in Iran is going.
Given reporting that the board hasn't met since 2024, the US effectively suspended it the moment Trump took office. The current US administration seems uninterested in partnership or even coordination.
Honestly did anyone think NORAD was about protecting anything other than the US? I suppose it has just allowed us to take a clownish amount of time to replace the F-18.
It's not that this doesn't matter, it does, it's more that NORAD was/is always in the American interest, and it remains so. This is just an episode of the US lacking serious people in its executive branch. My 2¢ for what it's worth, probably not worth even that.
If the anyone thinks the US would never use Canada as a ‘Kill Zone’ for any attack against the US then they are delusional. NORAD was but a way for us to have some input.
Symbolically important, to be sure. But of no substantive relevace. Not once in my time in National Defence Headquarters did I ever hear anyone--civilian, military or political--ever say "what does the PJBD think about this issue?" before we acted.
The most likely military conflict facing Canada is over the Arctic. This won't be a joint defence by Canada and the US. Rather Trump will seek to cut a deal, either with China or Russia, at Canada's expense. Canada's only likely allies are in Northern Europe. The sooner Canada breaks with the US in military terms, the better.
If it hasn’t met since 2024, it’s already on hiatus. The Trump administration is not big on policy discussion generally or international collaboration specifically. They also like trying to bully and annex Canada. I wouldn’t get overly involved with specific comments on these topics from Mr Colby or Mr Hoekstra since they are consistent with the larger trajectory and discussion. It’s a shame many important historical constructions are being corrupted and violated in the USA including the US constitution and fundamental rule of law.
Any institutional body where Canada and the US are treated as equals will be targetted by the current administration - defence, water, trade, whatever. They are to international cooperation what the swirlie was to school spirit.
“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.”
That statement by a sitting Canadian Prime Minster is political malpractice. More, it was Carney showboating for the Davos crowd. A real reputation maker that speech; he will dine out on that one for a long, long time.
Didn’t Finland just join NATO ?
Reading is hard:
“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.”
I honestly don't get what point you're trying to make. He said 'old relationship' of tight security cooperation is over. That means the particular form and style the defence relationship followed in the past, as this post discusses.
And yet clearly some sort of relationship continues, so logically there must be a new relationship, even if undefined. So maybe its nuance that is hard, not reading ??
I would argue he is far from a minor figure. He is considered Trump’s eyes and ears on Hegseth, and has been the most hawkish policy official in the Pentagon. He’s who has cleaned house of the Generals who won’t do Trump’s bidding. When he speaks, he’s carrying out a White House strategy. Likely from Stephen Miller, but I can’t prove that.
Great perspective. I know it is early doors, but what is your sense: is this a hiatus or an ending? Would a post-Trump administration re-visit this decision?
If they intended to end it, they would have ended it.
I do wonder if Colby has revived one of Trump’s "old hits" in the hopes of getting on his good side, angling for a promotion in the event Trump decides to make Hegseth the sacrificial scapegoat for how the war in Iran is going.
Are we upset? Not sure that's the case.
Given reporting that the board hasn't met since 2024, the US effectively suspended it the moment Trump took office. The current US administration seems uninterested in partnership or even coordination.
Honestly did anyone think NORAD was about protecting anything other than the US? I suppose it has just allowed us to take a clownish amount of time to replace the F-18.
It's not that this doesn't matter, it does, it's more that NORAD was/is always in the American interest, and it remains so. This is just an episode of the US lacking serious people in its executive branch. My 2¢ for what it's worth, probably not worth even that.
If the anyone thinks the US would never use Canada as a ‘Kill Zone’ for any attack against the US then they are delusional. NORAD was but a way for us to have some input.
Who killed Santa Claus?
https://www.noradsanta.org/en/
Symbolically important, to be sure. But of no substantive relevace. Not once in my time in National Defence Headquarters did I ever hear anyone--civilian, military or political--ever say "what does the PJBD think about this issue?" before we acted.
The most likely military conflict facing Canada is over the Arctic. This won't be a joint defence by Canada and the US. Rather Trump will seek to cut a deal, either with China or Russia, at Canada's expense. Canada's only likely allies are in Northern Europe. The sooner Canada breaks with the US in military terms, the better.
If it hasn’t met since 2024, it’s already on hiatus. The Trump administration is not big on policy discussion generally or international collaboration specifically. They also like trying to bully and annex Canada. I wouldn’t get overly involved with specific comments on these topics from Mr Colby or Mr Hoekstra since they are consistent with the larger trajectory and discussion. It’s a shame many important historical constructions are being corrupted and violated in the USA including the US constitution and fundamental rule of law.
Any institutional body where Canada and the US are treated as equals will be targetted by the current administration - defence, water, trade, whatever. They are to international cooperation what the swirlie was to school spirit.
“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.”
That statement by a sitting Canadian Prime Minster is political malpractice. More, it was Carney showboating for the Davos crowd. A real reputation maker that speech; he will dine out on that one for a long, long time.
Or was.