Stephen Miller, if allowed to guide US policy, will start World War 3.
— Hamilton Nolan (@hamiltonnolan.bsky.social) January 5, 2026 at 6:00 PM
[image or embed]
Here is that Globe and Mail piece:
We need to prepare for the possibility that the U.S. uses military coercion against CanadaNext, Dean Blundell writes a fascinating article about the Globe and Mail opinion piece.
...a plausible scenario for U.S. application of military force against Canada to seize our oil resources goes something like this. An independence referendum in Alberta – during which separatists receive a huge infusion of grey MAGA money – sees a majority vote to remain part of Canada, but with 30 per cent or more voting for separation. Mr. Trump declares the result is “fake” and that actual support for separation was “well over” 50 per cent. Alberta separatists then appeal to the U.S. for help, claiming various kinds of oppression. The U.S. moves troops to the northern Montana border and tells the rest of Canada that Alberta must be allowed to join America as the “51st state.”
Canada should game out such scenarios and plan specifically how we’d respond. In the above situation, ensuring electoral-process integrity is clearly job one. We can also make it clear to the U.S. that any use of military force will be extremely costly, by dramatically accelerating investments in national service and homeland defence, rapidly building out domestic defence industries, and developing a national drone strategy.
Finally, we should bolster ties with traditional allies and novel partners alike and work alongside those who are similarly threatened by giant neighbours, such as Finland, the Baltic republics, Mexico and Taiwan. We should aim to marshal a global consensus that such flagrant violations of international law are unacceptable and will bring the U.S. costly reputational harm, as has been true for Russia – harm that will only grow exponentially if the U.S. repeats such actions in Canada or elsewhere.
The world is wildly non-linear now, so little can be predicted with confidence.
“Running” Venezuela – whatever that means – will almost certainly not work in the longer term, as the country fractures or rallies against the U.S.; and elsewhere in the world, China might use the action against Venezuela as a license to attack Taiwan.
But whatever surprises are in store, one fact is certain: our neighbour’s autocratic and avaricious leader is demonstrably eager to use his country’s massive military power to advance his interests. We must get ready.
The Unthinkable Is Now Thinkable: Canada is Preparing to Defend Against US Military Incursion
Canada Is Quietly Preparing for U.S. Military Coercion — Why That’s Not Fear, It’s Survival
...The most important thing about the Globe and Mail column wasn’t what it said.
It was that it ran at all.
For generations, Canadian media treated the idea of U.S. hostility as unsayable — even irresponsible. The mere suggestion was framed as anti-American, hysterical, or unserious. That barrier is gone. When mainstream institutions start printing these arguments, it means the internal conversations have already moved several steps ahead. Media doesn’t lead on this. It follows.
...The scenario Canada is preparing for is not boots crossing the border. It’s:
-Trade coercion backed by security threats
-Intelligence leverage
-Defence conditionality
-Diplomatic pressure enforced by military posture
That’s how power is exercised in 2026. And it’s how Trump has shown he operates. There is nothing anti-American about refusing to be vulnerable to an unstable American presidency. Canada is choosing which alliances are reliable. Planning for coercion doesn’t mean expecting it. It means ensuring it fails if attempted.
...We are:
-Expanding reserves
-Strengthening recruitment
-Diversifying partnerships
-Reducing dependence
-Quietly building resilience
That’s what competent states do when the ground shifts under their feet. For decades, Canada relied on a single assumption: That the United States would always be a stable, benevolent partner. That assumption is no longer guaranteed.
Recognizing that reality isn’t fear. It’s maturity. And the sooner Canadians understand that preparation is an act of confidence — not panic — the better positioned we’ll be for whatever version of the future arrives. Because sovereignty isn’t something you declare.
It’s something you prepare to defend — even from the unthinkable.
View on Threads
The Greenland Adventure that President Miller is planning next will blow up in their faces and destroy NATO as a force against war:
Warner: "Nothing would lead to the absolute destruction of NATO more than US aggressive action against a longtime ally like Denmark" Schumer: "I asked for assurances that they were not planning operations in other countries like Colombia and Cuba, and I was very very disappointed in their answer"
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 6, 2026 at 1:59 PM
[image or embed]
Here are a couple of posts from a fascinating Tatarigami thread:
4/ In reality, Europe has many levers, financial, economic, and security related. Last but not least, it has military forces that could be deployed to Greenland. The purpose would not be to win a war, but to make a Crimean style annexation impossible
— Tatarigami (@tatarigami.bsky.social) January 6, 2026 at 8:08 AM
And this Justin Ling thread is also worth reading:8/ Trump acts only when the risks are low. He bombed Iran only after Israel had already suppressed Iranian air defenses, air forces, and command structures. Europe must act collectively, and by acting collectively I mean far more than issuing joint statements.
— Tatarigami (@tatarigami.bsky.social) January 6, 2026 at 8:08 AM
Ah! Good question. Because it's not an *entirely* misplaced concern. China's belt-and-road initiative, mixed with its ambitions as a "near-Arctic power" did mean it had designs for more economic/trade/political influence in Greenland. bsky.app/profile/ebon...
— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) January 6, 2026 at 11:02 AM
[image or embed]
But, critically, Beijing largely abandoned those efforts; Greenland was skeptical of them from the very beginning; and China's influence could be more readily opposed by more Danish/EU/NATO investment, not American annexation. (Also true for the Canadian Arctic.)
— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) January 6, 2026 at 11:02 AM
— Rae Roer (@raeroer.bsky.social) January 6, 2026 at 11:07 AM
Hey, here's an idea:
View on Threads
Another good piece:
Wesley Wark’s National Security and Intelligence Newsletter
Canada’s increasingly complicated security geography
Or, which is closer to Ottawa? Caracas, Nuuk, Kyiv, Washington?
...How close is Kyiv vs. Caracas? At the heart of the dilemma for the Coalition of the Willing is that the future of Ukraine far outweighs concerns about Venezuela. For there to be any just peace settlement for Ukraine, Coalition members know that a US security guarantee and US willingness to serve as a military backstop to European pledges to enforce a peace settlement is vital. This is simply an expression of the current realities of hard power. Keeping the US in play over a Ukraine peace deal was already complicated and fraught. Overt repudiation of the US action in Venezuela potentially threatens future US engagement. On top of that, many Coalition members, including Canada, did not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate ...
....Following the military success of the Venezuelan operation, [Trump] has doubled down on claims about annexing Greenland. He told reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, January 4, that:
“We need Greenland for a national security situation. It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.”
Russian and Chinese ships all over the place in Greenland? That’s on a par with “here be monsters,” and no less mythological.
Trump’s threat occasioned the strongest language yet from both the Greenland Premier, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, and the Danish PM, Mette Frederiksen.
Nielsen posted on social media: :”enough is enough. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies about annexation.”
In response to Trump, The Danish PM took a more end-of-days tone. She is quoted in the media as saying, “The American president should be taken seriously when he says he wants Greenland, If the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops…including the security that has been established since the end of the second world war.”
Nuuk, too, is a little closer than Caracas. Even the end of NATO as we know it might be getting closer.
How close is Washington, D.C? In allied miles, it’s fast receding, but PM Carney and others still face a difficult geopolitical reality.
Here is how the PM put it in Paris. NATO provides security for all, Greenland included. More security is on the way….”We stand with Denmark. We stand with Greenland. Our closest partnership is with the United States and we’ll work with everybody to make sure that we move forward together.”
Remember the old saying. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
And watch out for monsters, real or imagined.
PARIS – Prime Minister Mark Carney says the future of Greenland will be “solely” up to the people of Denmark and Greenland.
— Winnipeg Free Press (@winnipegfreepress.com) January 6, 2026 at 10:43 AM
[image or embed]
Meanwhile, Canada's one-trick-pony continues to spout irrelevancies:Warner: "Nothing would lead to the absolute destruction of NATO more than US aggressive action against a longtime ally like Denmark" Schumer: "I asked for assurances that they were not planning operations in other countries like Colombia and Cuba, and I was very very disappointed in their answer"
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 6, 2026 at 1:59 PM
[image or embed]
Once again, I ask: Approve what? Which route? With which proponents? With what consent from First Nations rights-holders? There's nothing to approve. Not even a line on a map.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) January 6, 2026 at 10:25 AM
[image or embed]
View on Threads
This foretells America's future:
Trump’s first year answered a crucial question: “How fast can a country go from superpower to circus?” 2026 will test how long the circus can run before the lions notice.
— ππ¦ππππ πΎπ¦π£π (@sundaedivine.lol) January 1, 2026 at 6:59 AM
Since President Miller wants to take America back to the 19th Century, I wonder if he ever looked up these old treaties:
View on Threads
3 comments:
This isn't good...
"The U.S. seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker that was being shadowed by a Russian submarine on Wednesday, after pursuing it for more than two weeks across the Atlantic as part of Washington's efforts to block Venezuelan oil exports." https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-seizing-venezuela-linked-oil-tanker-after-weeks-long-pursuit-2026-01-07/
So, another US act of piracy, this time involving a Russian ship under Russian naval protection near Iceland. Are these clowns trying to start WW3?
I read somewhere that no nation will ever be unable to find enough young men to start a war. I guess I should have taken Hegseth's warrior speech more seriously.
How come we call Venezuela a failed state when we , in the west, restrict its oil exports?
TB
Post a Comment