Not seeing any convincing arguments from the US Ambassador for Canada to buy the F-35s. The US has had extensive access to the Canadian North under NORAD for 70 years. If the US feels it needs to buy more F-35s if we don’t, so be it.
NORAD pact would change if Canada pulls back from F-35 order, warns U.S. ambassador | CBC News
Another vieled threat of conquest perhaps.
I know the Canadian governments analysis suggested the F-35 was the best option, but I wonder how balanced the analysis was. If we’re fighting with NATO like in Afghanistan or doing stuff in the former Yugoslavia or perhaps Iraq, I see the logic of it.
On the other hand, if we’re fighting the US or perhaps Russia on Canadian territory, I’m thinking the Saab seems like a vastly better option where it seems better able to function in an environment where we have to disperse are air force to limit the ability of someone to bomb our air force. The F-35 seems to need massively higher amounts of maintenance to remain operational and I’m not sure that’s plausible in this situation.
Agree.
The previous analysis was done in a different era. The need for Canada to develop its own military manufacturing industry was not a consideration. The F35 offers nothing much in that regard but Saab does.
For the cost the best thing for Canada to do would be to get nukes. US can’t be trusted, MAD is the only defense that works.
I’m inclined to believe Carney over Bessent. Why would Carney walk back the best speech he’ll ever give?
Carney says he told Trump 'I meant what I said in Davos,' despite U.S. claims | CBC News
Inclined? You should know by now not to trust anything anyone in the current US administration says.
I would go so far as to say that if someone in the current US administration says something, you should consider believing the exact opposite thing.
US ambassador to Canada met with Alberta separatists to discuss funding thier movement. Foriegn interference for me not for thee.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eby-alberta-separatism-9.7066320
How about 11th province instead of 51st state asks former Minnesota governor Jessie Ventura
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/minnesota-join-canada-jesse-ventura-9.7067000
And Trump wonders why we are looking at closer ties with China, India, and the rest of the world. I really can’t see the value of a trade deal with Trump. He won’t honour any deal so why bother?
I don’t think he cares about our ties to other countries as much as he cares about seeing us not being punished or under his boot heel.
Unfortunately for him, Carney has made it entirely clear to Canadians that he’s not going to bow to individual pressures because Trump’s not trustworthy. Which means Carney can go ahead and make deals or not, because even if there’s fallout from Trump, Canadians will just appreciate it’s the cost of avoiding the US now. Carney doesn’t have to cowtow to Trump even if he’s going to destroy the canadian aerospace manufacting segment.
Trump telling Canada and the UK that deals with China are dangerous, despite being scheduled to meet with China in April for his own trade deal.
It is rational to suppose trading between imbalanced partners is more risky than trading between more balanced partners. Not saying that is behind the statement though.
Good for local billionaire Jim Pattison
And the 50% reduction in US car company manufacturing in Canada doesn’t take into account their more recent production shifts to the US. Canadian politicians have been fools with the $billions shovelled to them in the past decade.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/detroit-three-decline-report-9.7071248
US treatment of Alberta separatists has chilling parallels with Donbas in Ukraine.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-separatism-trump-administration-9.7068999
I suppose it would be wrong/risky for Canada to point out that there is a growing separatist sentiment in blue portions of the West Coast of the US and in New England.
I think we should start negotiating a swap of lands, say Alberta for Minnesota?
