We lined up behind Trump on Gaza, said nothing about Venezuela, are saying nothing about Cuba, and essentially support the US against Iran. Where is the rupture?

Rubio flies over to Munich and gets a standing ovation for a speech in which he talks about a return to transatlantic empire flexing over the rest of the world, and materially we’re basically still seeing that.

Carney’s rhetoric at Davos was nice. I remain totally unconvinced that there is material change to accompany that rhetoric. Seems like dropping liberalism for values-based realism is just a retreat into realism. Calling it “Values-Based” is just the new rhetorical compromise and branding effort to make it palatable for stakeholders who were attached to the narrative of the liberal international order.

Canada doesn’t want diplomatic relations with Iran. Fine. Personally, I think diplomatic engagement should exist with every country, because diplomacy includes engaging even with those you regard as enemies and that’s how diplomacy offers benefits. But, if Canada’s government doesn’t want that, okay. Still, while the US is building up a massive force in the region, we won’t even make a statement about opposing wars of aggression or unilateral engagement in armed conflict?

Sure seems like we’re still aligned with the Transatlantic Empire idea.

What are the Global South countries we seem to be trying to hedge our bets with to think of us? They’re not blind. Should they trust us? We don’t actually seem to have any problem with US adventurism, even while having our national identity and sovereignty threatened and undermined by the US on the daily.

A rupture should be a matter of material change, but I’m thinking a few years from now everyone will look back on this as just a nice speech while we kept sailing right alongside the US through the night.