that video i posted yesterday may have some chronology issues in terms of understanding motives in washington, which have always been pragmatic. it doesn't take note of the role the united states played in the rise of hitler, or acknowledge that hitler was supposed to defeat the red army on behalf of the capitalist west. hitler was initially a us ally. they sold him weapons. in the end, hitler was blowback, like bin laden was, but the truth is that the americans went into europe in 1941/42 to stop stalin from conquering france. germany had already lost the war by that point. the british were too weak to face the soviets on their own. it was a race to berlin.

what canadian policy makers should take note of is the logic gate.

- canada is a threat to washington precisely when it is aligned with europe (or china) because it presents a landing zone for a european or asiatic power.

- it is when canada is in conflict with europe that they see canada as a weak neighbour to protect, rather than a threat to contain.

the americans have never seen canada as an equal. there's actually a section in the american constitution that lays out the legal pathway towards the annexation of canada, or canada's decision to join the union. it was seen as inevitable in 1763, in 1776 and in 1789. nobody making decisions in washington at the time would have considered it likely that canada would separate from britain in 1982 and be a sovereign country in 2026. that would have implied that the american revolution had failed by the year 2000, in the minds of the american founders.

until canada submits, it might need to be a buffer state that needs to be protected from threats or might need to be conquered because it is a threat, depending on the geopolitics developing. it can't be an equal neighbour. that undoes the revolution, itself.

it's not the united states of the lower one third of north america. the existence of a competing state in north america means the revolution failed. maybe you've never looked at it like that, but that's the blunt truth. the founders would consider it an unacceptable outcome.

so, there's a reason the americans signed an agreement to put forces in greenland the day after canada announced an alliance with germany, and that alignment is not the alignment canada wants, to maintain it's sovereignty. this is not "leverage". that is stupid. it's generating a direct threat against a power that could wipe us out in a week. we don't want to get into a competition with them. the alignment we want is the one where the americans see canada as a buffer state against the europeans that needs to be defended from a potential attack by them, not the one where the americans see canada as a landing zone for a hostile european power to take advantage of.

the elder trudeau was smart. he had a grasp of this.

mark carney is not smart, he's a hothead, and he's reacting emotionally, out of pride, and in order to compete and is in the process steering us directly into an iceberg that is going to sink us.

if we don't understand where we're headed with this and change direction, we are doomed. an alliance with europe is an algorithm for our destruction.

susan collins is unlikely to run for more than two more terms. when she retires, there will be an open seat that democrats will have a very good chance to win and hold for decades.

however, it's extremely unlikely that voters in maine are going to take out their frustrations against trump, which may be real, by voting against susan collins. there is no logic in that. it wouldn't make any real difference, it would just be undirected hot rage. in fact, there's a reason she keeps winning, and it's the same reason bernie sanders keeps winning, it's a reflection of that part of the country's dislike of both parties. it may be a two party system, but that isn't necessarily what americans actually want, and frustration with trump doesn't necessarily translate into support for democrats, who may support gun control or have views on climate change that are not welcome in the region. it's just not that easy.

elections are complicated things. you can't really explain them fully until after they happen.

but there is no empirical indication that susan collins is at risk of losing her seat.