Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Roundup: Begun, the trade war has

Posted on by

The inevitable has happened—Trump’s tariffs are now in effect, after Trump told reporters in his daily ramblings that there was nothing Canada or Mexico could do to forestall them. It was obvious they were going to happen—Trump and his economic advisors have decided that they love tariffs, and that it’s going to solve their revenue problems for the big tax cuts they plan to give billionaires. It won’t—tariffs are paid by the importers, who pass it along to consumers, but Trump refuses to believe that, so it’s the American people who are coming in for a world of hurt, especially as the stock market started to plunge once the markets started to realise that Trump was being serious.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T06:17:07.867Z

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T06:18:16.623Z

Here at home, Justin Trudeau announced that the first tranche of retaliatory measures would start immediately, with more to come after consultation. Of course, the last line in his statement should have been the first—that it’s the Americans who have broken the agreement that Trump himself signed, which speaks volumes about the Americans can no longer be trusted to uphold their own agreements. Oh, and Trump is still planning on increasing duties on lumber coming from Canada, so keep an eye out for that as well. As the trade war ramps up, here is a look at what to expect, and how provinces are also expected to respond with their own measures.

Trudeau's statement on the coming tariffs and counter-tariffs. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T01:59:14.433Z

Here is the plan, from Feb 2nd:www.canada.ca/en/departmen…Tariffs on $30B of goods now; another $125B in a few weeks.Here's the detailed list of products covered by the initial action tomorrow:www.canada.ca/en/departmen…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T02:10:25.520Z

I'm ok with some countertariffs; we need to use all tools. But tariffs on peanut butter and OJ aren't enough.We need to see aggressive non-tariff actions.No one in America seems to want to take the fight to Trump. But we can and we should and we will. Elbows up!

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T03:16:59.941Z

True to form, Pierre Poilievre decided that blaming the government for the imposition of tariffs was the way to go, with a bunch of mendacious fabrications about what they have and have not been doing, with the have-not mostly being to implement his plans with alacrity, as though he’s a super genius who has it all figured out, when, well, we know that’s not exactly true.

Of course, we were also treated to a Doug Ford performance, as he got all theatrically angry on American television and threatened to cut off electricity across the border, and that he would do it with a smile. Of course, Ford (who is claiming he got a “stronger mandate” in last week’s election in spite of losing seats) is all talk. His bluff is going to be called, and no electricity will actually be cut off, because it’s not going to be that easy to do in spite of what he thinks, and you can bet he’ll come up with some kind of excuse about why he was all bluster.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone attack injured four and damaged energy infrastructure in Odesa. Ukraine is also investigating negligence surrounding a Russian missile strike on a military graining ground over the weekend. As expected, the Americans have “paused” their aid to Ukraine, as last week’s ambush was a set-up in order to give a justification for their plans to do so.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An ambush in the White House

Posted on by

It was an ambush. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House, ostensibly to sign some kind of agreement around access to critical minerals in exchange for some kind of military support or security guarantees was a set-up for Trump and JD Vance to try and humiliate Zelenskyy in front of the cameras, with one of the reporters from Russian state outlet TASS in the room (who was removed at one point by the Secret Service, but it was obvious that someone in the White House arranged for him to be there). The whole video is sickening to watch.

Vance blew up that meeting on purpose

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T20:00:00.112Z

I've just looked again at the Starmer meeting – Vance tried to blow that up too. But Trump didn't take the bait.

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T20:38:07.909Z

While Trump and Vance started broadcasting this for their followers as a supposed sign of strength, and their lackeys and apologists broadcast Russian propaganda to justify it, word also started leaking out that Trump is planning on cutting off military aid to Ukraine for Zelenskyy’s supposed intransigence and lack of desire for peace, which is of course mendacious and part of the set-up.

This was the plan all along

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-03-01T04:52:42.168Z

In the wake of this, world leaders started tweeting their support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and this was probably the death knell of NATO as we know it. The one leader who has been silent is Keir Starmer, but he is also hosting a summit in London today about Ukraine and European security, which Justin Trudeau will also be attending.

I have to wonder what words are going to be had between Trudeau and Starmer…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T23:49:23.352Z

I wonder if this was planned at the Munich Security Conference?

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T23:57:08.362Z

Here are some hot takes from Tom Nichols and David Frum, while Philippe Lagassé has some additional thoughts on the situation.

Closer to home, in an interview with the Spectator, Trump took credit for Chrystia Freeland’s supposed “firing” (she was not fired), and said that Poilievre’s problem is that “he’s not a MAGA guy.” Which is true—Poilievre doesn’t have much of a coherent ideology, but he’s not MAGA. What he is, however, is someone who will say anything that he feels he needs to in order to attract the MAGA crowd to his banner, no matter how ridiculous it is, and he has no morals, ethics, or scruples about it. Poilievre jumped on this to declare that he’s “Canada First,” and later did tweet support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and immediately got roasted in the comments by his MAGA supporters for it. Funny what happens when you play with fire.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1895631503469449464

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck a medical facility, among other targets, in Kharkiv. The framework for a mineral agreement that Ukraine was supposed to sign with the Americans, before the ambush, contained a number of gaps around security or dispute resolution, before it turned out to be a sham.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Starmer sputters instead of speaking up

Posted on by

UK prime minister Keir Starmer visited the White House yesterday, and a couple of bizarre scenes erupted. One was that he presented an invitation from King Charles for Trump to make a second state visit to the UK, which way too many people took as a personal invitation rather than one at the behest of the government—because the King does not act unilaterally, and does not make state visit invitations on his own. Later, when Starmer was asked about the annexation threats, Stamer didn’t stand up for Canada, but sputtered about there being no divisions before Trump cut him off with a sharp “That’s enough.” And worse, when Starmer was asked by a journalist if the King had anything to say about the annexation threats, Starmer said that he can’t say what the King’s opinions are and that he’ll let them be known in his own way.

*seethes*

On the one hand, Starmer is sucking up to Trump to avoid being tariffed, which probably won’t work, but I get his self-interest here, but it’s nevertheless a sign of the shifting global order and a sense of who our allies really are. (Thus far, only Germany has expressly said that they have Canada’s back). On the other hand, the fact that reporters are trying to drag the King into this is wildly inappropriate, and I’m not sure whether that’s because American journalists cannot grasp what a constitutional monarchy is (seriously, it makes their brains melt), but the fact that so many people in this country who should know how constitutional monarchy works because we are one, are rising to take the bait and are raging about how the King is supposedly “betraying” us is really disheartening because it’s a reflection of just how poor our civics education is, and how ignorant our own media are about how the very basic rules of our system of government operate.

The King does not freelance, he does not say things without advice, and his governments do not drag him into their fights because the first rule of constitutional monarchy is that you DO NOT involve the King. Starmer should have given a better answer in both cases, and Canadians following along shouldn’t take the bait.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians launched air attacks on energy sites in the Kharkiv region. Ukraine’s top army commander visited sites on the front lines in eastern Donetsk region.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1895048627690656241

Continue reading →

Roundup: Don’t complain to the minister

Posted on by

There was a whole lot of online anger over the weekend directed at CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup, as the topic was the whole American annexation talk, and they decided to co-broadcast this with an NPR in the US, and treated the whole thing like a though experiment when it’s our sovereignty we’re discussing. It’s not a cute thought experiment, and it’s not

https://twitter.com/HNHughson/status/1893684327973539938

While I did not personally listen, I have been informed that the topic was framed around the notion that this would be some sort of democratic process, which is not the threat, and then they invited Kevin O’Leary on to give his take, and not only didn’t bother to actually push back or fact-check anything he said, but Ian Hanomansing invited people do to their own fact-checking online after the show. Are you fucking kidding me? That’s supposed to be your job as journalists. But seriously. Kevin O’Leary. You know he has nothing of value to offer but bluster. This was a deliberate choice by producers to crank up the “controversy,” which was both irresponsible and a dereliction of duty. Just an absolute gods damned catastrophe. It’s not that we shouldn’t be talking about the threat of annexation or that Trump promises to wage economic warfare on us to turn us into a vassal state—it’s that we need to frame these discussions in a clear-eyed way, not whatever this bullshit that Hanomansing and company were doing.

The whole attempt was a sticky mixture of aggressive both-sidesing, trying to be controversial to make people angry for the engagement, and the arrogance of the host/producers that they could get away with it.That they brought in Kevin O'Leary was a *choice.*

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-24T01:56:56.438Z

To make matters worse, a bunch of people have decided to complain to the minister about this.

No. Absolutely not.

CBC may be a public broadcaster, but it is run arm’s-length from government, because it’s not a state broadcaster (regardless of what Conservative chuds like to claim). The minister has no say and should have no say in this. If you want to complain, talk to the CBC ombudsman, or the head of CBC news, but you DO NOT complain to the minister about it. That’s about as wrong as writing to the King to complain, and will get you the same form-letter response.

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3livb5f6oj22e

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched guided bomb attacks overnight Friday, killing one woman in Kostiantynivka, and then launched their largest drone attack yet overnight Saturday, with 267 drones fired, along with missiles. At least one person died as a result of a strike in Kryvyi Rih in that attack. North Korea is providing as much as half of Russia’s ammunition against Ukraine by this point. The US tried to force Ukraine to withdraw their UN resolution condemning Russia on the third anniversary of the invasion, in favour of an American resolution that soft-pedals the whole thing. (Ukraine would not). Zelenskyy said that he would be willing to step down if it meant a proper peace deal that includes NATO membership, and rejected Trump’s demands for $500 billion in “payback.”

Please share this fact sheet on Ukraine with anyone who needs itunderstandingwar.org/backgrounder…

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-23T07:47:10.900Z

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trio of interim leaders

Posted on by

Rob Lantz was sworn-in as the new premier of PEI yesterday, but he’s officially an interim party leader because outgoing premier Dennis King didn’t bother to hang around long enough for a successor to be chosen (as Justin Trudeau has), which frankly just adds to the mystery surrounding why he resigned in a hurry. Usually that only happens when there’s a scandal of some variety. But what I didn’t realise was that the other two parties who have seats in the legislature also only have interim leaders, and that it’s been two years since the last provincial election, and no party has a permanent leader.

Here’s former PEI journalist Teresa Wright with more.

While I will push back on the “only chosen by 18 members” comment, because we should actually let the caucus choose the leader, it is nevertheless a problem that there are no permanent leaders in that legislature after two years. It’s malpractice, frankly, and a sign about how broken leadership politics have become in this country. I’ve seen it happen over multiple parties federally, particularly where they feel that they need between nine months and two years to find a new permanent leader so that they can generate ideas or “excitement” in the race, which again, is not how this is supposed to happen. The leader should not be the one bringing policy to the table—that should be the responsibility of the grassroots membership. And leaders should be within the caucus and not some outsider who thinks they can sail into the position without ever having run for office in the past. *coughs*

This tactic of waiting until closer to the election to pick a new leader smacks of opportunism and just having leaders to be election figureheads rather than doing the actual work that MPs/MLAs should be doing the rest of the legislative session. This is Very Bad for democracy. Legislative work needs to be done. Constituency work needs to be done. Leaders are supposed to have other responsibilities within parties than just leading an election. PEI used to be known for having a pretty robust civic culture, so this is not only disappointing, but a bad sign for the state of democracy in this country.

Especially in politics.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-21T14:38:53.896Z

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight drone attack killed a rail worker outside of Kyiv, while falling debris damaged buildings inside the city. Russians claim to have taken three more villages in east Ukraine. American negotiators are threatening to cut Ukraine off from Starlink services unless they sign the document that demands fifty percent of their resource wealth in exchange for no protection or security guarantees.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre selects his echo chamber

Posted on by

Yesterday, Pierre Poilievre held a media availability in the GTA, and if you ignore some of his more vacuous commentary, like claiming that he needs to cut government spending to bring down inflation when deficits never fuelled inflation in the first place, and the fact that inflation has already been tamed and is currently sitting below the 2 percent target, well, you get the drift. Nevertheless, what was particularly interesting was the fact that media who attended the event were told that they weren’t getting questions, and that only five pre-determined outlets would get questions—two far-right outlets, two ethno-cultural media outlets, and Radio-Canada.

This is clearly a strategy of speaking to an echo chamber who won’t push back on the kinds of horseshit he was peddling (like the inflation comments). It’s also noteworthy that in his interview with True North/Juno Media last week, Poilievre went on a tangent about how they should be allowed in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, and he claimed that Gallery-members are “government-approved,” when the government has zero say in who gets Gallery accreditation—the Gallery is self-governing, and we have determined that True North, Rebel, and other far-right outlets are not actually practicing journalism, but propaganda. (The Gallery has also determined that left-wing outlet PressProgress also doesn’t merit membership because it is run by the partisan Broadbent Institute). Nevertheless, Poilievre’s spokesperson went ahead and spun it as though Poilievre was oh-so available to the media while Mark Carney was not.

This is, of course, mendacious. Poilievre has been self-selective of his media availabilities, and has refused most legacy media outlets, particularly those who are inclined to push back against any of his complete and utter bunkum. And yes, we have seen similar tactics coming from Trump, who has been offering not only space for far-right outlets, but has kicked out established media outlets from their desks in the Pentagon to give them to the chuds who will mindlessly repeat his propaganda. Conservatives in this country have been moving in this direction for a while now, and for Poilievre to be so blatant about it is very telling.

Pretty much everything coming out of every political leader in this country right now. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-21T01:36:54.542Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 161 drones and a dozen missiles at Ukraine overnight Wednesday, targeting gas infrastructure in Kharkiv, and the power supply in Odesa. The media availability from Zelenskyy’s meeting with the new US envoy was changed to a photo op, and a chill has definitely set in.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1892538057057878088

Continue reading →

Roundup: Paying $85,000 for the privilege of being humiliated

Posted on by

As if that “big” meeting the premiers had with those mid-level White House officials who ended up trolling and humiliating them couldn’t get any worse, well, it did. It turns out, they paid a lobbyist connected with Don Jr. $85,000 to arrange said meeting, where they didn’t get properly briefed, and froze out the Canadian ambassador (who had a meeting in the White House with actual senior officials earlier that day) in the process.

Because I can’t do it justice, here’s more (full thread starts here):

/ “According to this high-level source, the premiers ‘underestimate how problematic this administration is and think that it is us, the Liberal fed govt, that’s incapable … because we are progressives.’ The source says the premiers now realize that the Trump admin is ‘a threat beyond partisanship.’”

— Alex Panetta (@alexpanetta.bsky.social) 2025-02-14T15:22:16.642Z

/ “Another source regrets the premiers did not invite any Canadian representatives to the table, such as the Canadian ambassador to the US, for example. Kirsten Hillman is considered the person who can open any door in Washington, and she should be aware of all discussions, the source believes.”

— Alex Panetta (@alexpanetta.bsky.social) 2025-02-14T15:23:02.640Z

/ “Some statements made by the Quebec premier have also raised eyebrows in Ottawa. A federal source believes François Legault revealed too much of his strategy.” Story cites some examples of him putting issues on, or taking them off, the negotiating table.

— Alex Panetta (@alexpanetta.bsky.social) 2025-02-14T15:25:56.279Z

/ Ottawa, by the way, feels the same about certain other provinces publicly declaring what Canada should or shouldn’t use as negotiating leverage.

— Alex Panetta (@alexpanetta.bsky.social) 2025-02-14T15:26:35.912Z

/ “‘It becomes dangerous to think out loud,’ said a federal source, who believes that such statements could weaken Canada’s negotiating position by revealing too much too soon. ‘We must not negotiate against ourselves,’ the source added.”

— Alex Panetta (@alexpanetta.bsky.social) 2025-02-14T15:27:17.535Z

I’m not sure that I can stress this enough—premiers have absolutely no business trying to conduct foreign negotiations. The federal government not only has been handling the situation, but they have told the premiers not to constantly react to everything coming from the Trump administration because it’s chaotic and incoherent, and then they went and tried to get their own meetings? Them meeting with senators and governors sure, I can understand, because they are more on their level as counterparts, but it’s also pretty useless in the current environment because Trump has absolutely everyone cowed.

I’m also going to point a finger at the media for emboldening these premiers because they keep saying things like “there’s a vacuum of leadership” at the federal level and so on, which is not the case. Trudeau is still on the job, even if he’s on his way out. Ministers are still doing their jobs. We have an ambassador in Washington doing her job. They have explicitly told the media that they are not going to react to everything for very good reason. There is no actual need for the premiers to step in and start freelancing. Doug Ford’s “Captain Canada” shtick was him positioning himself before an election, and thanks to uncritical media coverage, waaaaaaaay too many people fell for it. But the media needs people to light their hair on fire at every utterance, and the premiers have been only too happy to step in and fill that role, or to give the bootlicker position (because both sides!), and the federal government just winds up sidelining itself in the process. We’re handing Trump so many little wins because nobody can keep their powder dry.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone attack damaged port infrastructure in Odesa for a second day in a row. Another Russian drone pierced the outer shell of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, and while radiation levels are normal, there is a danger if power goes offline at the site for too long. Russians also claim to have taken control of two more settlements in Donetsk region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leadership hopefuls straying into provincial territory

Posted on by

It’s practically an iron law of Canadian politics that the longer a federal leadership contest runs, the more likely they are to start dipping into areas of provincial jurisdiction. With the NDP, well, that’s a given because they refuse to understand the very notion that federalism exists and you can’t just wave away jurisdictional boundaries with “political willpower” (aka Green Lantern Theory), but the Liberals are all pretty much at it right now with their various campaigns.

Chrystia Freeland proposed a plan to give incentives for Canadian-trained doctors and nurses to come home, with a big bonus and a promise to get credential recognition “within 30 days.” I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to work because the federal government doesn’t pay doctors and nurses (except in cases where they are working with Indigenous Services for First Nations and Inuit facilities), and credentials recognition is run by provincial professional colleges, where the federal government has no particular sway, so I’m not sure how she plans to make that happen. As well, most provinces have not done the necessary things to attract and retain doctors and nurses, such as properly increasing their compensation, or reforming how they bill the system, so it’s hard to see how the incentives are in place for them to be tempted by her one-time bonus.

Mark Carney wants to incentivise prefabricated and modular homes…but won’t give any details on how, that would happen. And yes, housing is primarily a provincial responsibility, so again, I’m not sure just what mechanism he wants to use for said promotion.

Karina Gould proposed both reforms to EI, which her government has been sitting on for years (and yes, I know people who were working on said project years ago), and also promised to a “path” toward basic income, which is hugely problematic at the federal level because most social services are delivered by the provinces, and it’s incredibly complex to try and figure out the various supports at different levels. The BC government had an expert panel report on how to make it happen, and their ultimate recommendation was not to proceed with a basic income, but to enhance existing supports because often they are better targeted for people with complex needs. Gould seems to have ignored this research, and even more disappointing was that the CP story about Gould’s proposal talked about the NDP private members’ bill and the Senate public bill which called for a “framework” for basic income, but those bills couldn’t actually make it happen. They were empty because those kinds of bills can’t spend money, and would simply have been moral suasion. Unfortunately, progressives have consistently ignored the research on basic incomes, because it’s a solution in search of problems that they are desperate to try, and if Gould wants “evidence-based” policy, this is not it.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians launched 140 drones against Ukraine overnight Wednesday, and strikes damaged port facilities in Izmail, while two of the drones landed in neighbouring Moldova. Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s Andreapol oil pumping station, starting a fire. President Zelenskyy appeared to have visited near the front lines at Pokrovsk, praising the good work of the soldiers there. Zelenskyy also said that he would not accept any bilateral “peace deal” that the US reaches with Russia in which Ukraine is not a participant.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1890070620504985845

A reminder: Vladimir Putin could end the war in Ukraine right now, just by ordering his soldiers to go home. No need for treaties or negotiations.

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-13T12:17:35.210Z

Continue reading →

Roundup: Policies or platitudes?

Posted on by

Chrystia Freeland is continuing to release policy ideas, and yesterday there was another list of them—a Middle Class™ tax cut (aimed at the upper end of that middle class, I would say), which seems to be about keeping pace with Mark Carney’s pledge; she is talking about cutting GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers, which echoes Pierre Poilievre’s pledge (and this particular policy has had the stamp of approval by people like Mike Moffatt); not only capping certain grocery prices, but going after the consolidation and monopolisation in the food chains before they reach the grocery oligopoly (the NDP howled that she was trying to steal their grocery cap idea, which they in turn took from France); capping credit card interest rates at 15 percent; and thousands of more early learning and child care spaces (which, I remind you, requires the cooperation of the provinces). It’s a lot, and some of them I find a bit dubious (such as the grocery price cap), but she did get the nod from experts in the field like Vass Bednar, so maybe I need to keep a more open mind about it. Nevertheless, she is coming out with a lot of proposals, and speaking to a lot of Canadian media, including in Quebec, unlike certain other leadership candidates.

Meanwhile, I continue to be completely underwhelmed by Carney, while everyone fawns over him. I am somewhat incredulous at this interview that he did with a columnist at the Winnipeg Free Press, who titled it “Mark Carney pitching answers, not slogans,” but he didn’t actually provide answers! Carney has pitched his Middle Class™ tax cut (which will inevitably disproportionately benefit the very wealthy), and then gave the platitudinous “It’s time to build … homes, building clean energy infrastructure, using all of our energy resources to maximum effect, helping to build the industries of the future now.” That actually says nothing. We know we need to build more homes and infrastructure, the question is how you’re going to do it in a way that is faster and more effectively than we’ve done to date, and that’s the real kicker that he doesn’t answer.

I also find his admission that he didn’t want to jump into politics until the top job was open to be completely off-putting. There are skills in politics that you don’t learn just jumping in at the very top, and it smacks of a particular kind of arrogance that Carney doesn’t see that. Nevertheless, the polls are suddenly swinging in his favour, so he’s clearly convinced a whole lot of people based on his resumé (a resumé that should preclude him from ever going into politics at that), and that single interview he did with John Stewart, but it feels like a whole lot of unearned credit at this point in the race.

Ukraine Dispatch

An early morning Russian missile attack on Kyiv killed at least one person and injured at least three others, while sparking several fires. Overnight Russian attacks on the Poltava region damaged natural gas production facilities in the region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unilateral Arctic plans and foreign aid churlishness

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a press conference from Iqaluit, yesterday, where he announced his Arctic policy ideas, which include finally building an air force base in the region, doubling the number of Canadian Rangers, and building two more heavy icebreakers, but for the Royal Canadian Navy and not the Coast Guard. Oh, and that he was going to pay for it all by gutting foreign aid. Set aside the fact that the plans for an Arctic base have long been in the works with slow progress, but does the Navy even want icebreaker capability? They didn’t want the slushbreakers—sorry, Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships that the Harper government decided they needed, and here is another Conservative who wants to impose capabilities that they have not asked for, because reasons. Nevertheless, this whole thing set off the premier of Nunavut, who noted there was zero consultation on these policies, and pointed to actual sovereignty-affirming things that governments should be doing for the north that aren’t this kind of performative flexing.

As for Poilievre’s disdain for foreign aid, it’s one-part monkey-see-monkey-do with MAGA and Elon Musk dismantling USAID, but it’s juvenile, provincial, and ignores that foreign aid is soft power that also does thinks like not let Russia and China swoop in and start winning hearts and minds in those countries, which is what Trump opened the door to, and which Poilievre seems keen to follow, justified by a number of lies about the recipients of that aid based on the fact that UNRWA may have had a handful of compromised employees. He doesn’t care about the realities of this aid spending and the projection of soft power, because those recipients can’t vote for him, and he’s playing into tired populist tropes about “taking care of people at home,” even though they actually don’t care about vulnerable people at home, and just want a tax cut instead of actually helping anyone. And again, Poilievre doesn’t care.

If anything, Canada should actually be living up to its previous pledges about increased funding for foreign assistance, particularly because the dismantling of USAID is going to affect programmes that Canada was partnering with them on, and they provided much of the “thought leadership” in the space. Children are going to die of malnutrition, and preventable illness, HIV infections are going to skyrocket, and again, Poilievre doesn’t care because those people can’t vote for him. What a bleak, cursèd timeline we live in right now.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Ukrainian drone attack damaged an industrial facility—possibly an oil refinery—in Russia’s Saratov region. The US’ “freeze” of aid money means that organisations helping investigate Russian war crimes can’t pay staff or continue their work—Trump and Musk just doing Putin’s bidding.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1888916130254725208

Continue reading →