Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew shake hands as they meet at the Manitoba Legislative Building in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada February 15, 2024.
Left-leaning premier calls for increased military spending
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced new pressure Wednesday from an unusual source to increase defense spending, when Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said Canada should boost spending to preserve its trade relationship with the United States.
Kinew, a member of the left-leaning New Democrats – a party that is traditionally opposed to increased military spending – said, “If we’re not meeting our responsibility to our NATO allies, it is going to have an impact on [the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement] renewal.”
The trade agreement is set to be reviewed in 2026, which will create the opportunity for the United States to push for changes, which seems likely no matter who is in the White House, since the pressure from the U.S. dairy industry, among others, is likely to persist.
During a NATO summit in Washington last week, under pressure from US politicians, Trudeau announced that Canada will hit the NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2032, and buy a new fleet of submarines, but he has not laid out a plan for doing so. Back in Canada after the summit, Defense Minister Bill Blair said it would amount to about CA$60 billion a year in spending, which economists would require significant cuts or spending increases.
Traditionally, defense spending has not been a vote winner in Canada, but if opinion leaders are increasingly seeing it as linked to the vital trade relationship, that may be changing.
Graphic Truth: Big bombs get big budgets in 2023
The world’s nuclear powers increased their spending on these apocalyptic weapons by a record 13% between 2022 and 2023, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Cumulatively, they spent a cool $91.4 billion on building, maintaining, and researching nuclear weapons.
Well over half of that spending came from the United States, to the tune of $51 billion. The next highest spenders were China and Russia, with comparatively frugal expenditures of $11 billion and $8 billion, respectively. The increases were not driven by building new weapons — arsenal levels remained fairly stable, according to a different study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute — but instead by developing new technology to target and launch the weapons.
The US and UK, which saw the largest increases in nuclear spending, are developing new rockets and submarines that they hope will help deter attacks. The US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, and North Korea are also reportedly developing so-called hypersonic missiles, which can travel over five times the speed of sound to avoid interception.
That amount of spending comes to $2,898 every second — roughly what the average global household makes in three months. As if spending vast amounts on weapons that could effectively end the world in about two hours wasn't tragic enough, in countries like North Korea and Pakistan, endemic poverty and economic stagnation mean every dollar spent on nukes is one less spent on food, fuel, and medicine.
Ian Bremmer addresses the audience at the 2024 US-Canada Summit in Toronto.
American and Canadian voters yearn for something they might never get
Is there a deep, secret yearning from American and Canadian voters for a radically open border? Do people really want Canada and the US to be more like the EU? OR, is border politics all about isolationism, security fears, and building walls? The results of an exclusive new poll from GZERO and Data Science will surprise you – and ought to be shaping the election campaigns in both countries.
We revealed part of the poll at the US-Canada Summit that I had the pleasure of co-hosting in Toronto, put on by the teams at Eurasia Group and BMO. Led off by our own Ian Bremmer and BMO’s CEO Darryl White, it included a remarkable collection of over 500 people, including political leaders from across the spectrum in both countries who debated, speechified, conversed, and argued.
Why are so many people so keen to discuss the US-Canada relationship? As Bremmer said, this is a hinge moment in history, with three wars raging — one in Ukraine, one in the Middle East, and one in the United States — a remark that caused gasps and nods. On top of that, 60+ elections are reshaping the world this year (Modi humbled in India, Macron in a showdown with the far right in France, Sunak shambolically slinking off in the UK). Meanwhile, China is threatening Taiwan, and AI is grinding its way through our economies and imaginations.
Gary Cohn, former director of the National Economic Council under Trump and the vice chairman of IBM, admitted that what worries him most is the collision between geopolitics and the economy. They are inextricably linked and making things worse. With the political bombs falling so close, people are desperately looking for a safe shelter, and that shelter is the US-Canada relationship. As Delaware Sen. Chris Coons said, squabbles between the two countries over tariffs or softwood lumber don’t add up to a pile of shell casing next to say China and Taiwan, which may be why the relationship is so often taken for granted or outright ignored. It is and remains one of the biggest bilateral trading relationships in the world.
Globalization is giving way to new forms of regionalism, or “friend-shoring with a vengeance.” But should the region have internal walls or not?
The mandate of the conference is to bring together people tired of partisan bickering, slogan swamping, and dizzying disinformationalizing – in other words, the bubble-blowing BS of everyday politics. They are urged to be authentic, honest, and, despite their political differences, get on with figuring out how to build something better and more secure than we have now. And they did.
Who joined in?
This is a partial list (pause for a long breath): Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, Industry Minister Francois Phillippe Champagne, Treasury Board President Anita Anand, who settled a major border strike during the conference, Ontario and Saskatchewan Premiers Doug Ford and Scott Moe, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, political wizards like David Axelrod from the Obama campaign and Christopher Liddell, the former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Donald Trump.
Speaking of the Trump folks, there was Gary Cohn, mentioned above, giving Canada a shot and saying it can “tag along” on US economic progress. Former Bank of Canada and England Governor Mark Carney spoke about building together based on common values, and there was Mitch Landrieu, the Biden/Harris 2024 National Campaign Co-Chair, who was in full fight mode over Trump. They were joined by more than 150 CEOs, dozens of policy wonks, and experts on everything from AI, security, economic policy, and more.
There were tray loads of interesting insights and ideas:
- On Trade: The 2026 review of the USMCA is widely seen as the most important framework for the economic future of North America, and there are genuine fears that if Trump wins (Turns out, Ivermectin may actually be a political vaccine against felony convictions) and senses that trade imbalances with the US have not changed, he will rip it up and send the economies reeling with nasty and counterproductive tariffs.
- On the Inflation Reduction Act: Candid admissions from US politicians that protectionism and US industrial policy can sideswipe Canada, simply because Canada gets forgotten.
- On Biden vs. Trump: A quote attributed to Bill Clinton was repeated as to why Biden’s good economic record is not reflected in his polling: “Strong and wrong beats weak and right.”
- On why Democrats are losing working-class voters: I asked David Axelrod why Democrats and progressives spend so much time convincing themselves that people like Trump are not fit for office but so little time reflecting on why their own policies are failing to connect with so many people. He told me — and later told the audience — that Democrats treat working-class Americans with such condescension it’s like anthropologist Margaret Mead studying what were then called “primitive societies” and telling them, “You need to be more like us, and we can teach you.” A devastating critique.
- Here is another Axe moment: Why are some independent and conservative voters tuning out Trump?” “Having Trump as president is like living next to someone who runs a leaf blower 24/7.”
- Personnel is policy: Gary Cohn spoke about why you need to know the people in power. “Any president gets to make 2,800 appointments — they make them all — but ‘personnel is policy,’ so if you want to know what Trump will do, see who he is appointing.” By the way, expect the USMCA trade negotiator Robert Leitheiser, the very guy who insisted on the six-year trade review, to be a senior member of the Trump team,
- Christopher Liddell of Trump White House 1.0, admitted that Trump didn’t know what he was doing in the first six months of his first term, but that it’s different this time, and that the planning and policies are already well underway. We should expect the first six months of a Trump 2.o to be rapid, decisive, and consequential, as he only has one term. His first target will be China and … his political enemies.
- On defense spending: Mark Carney said Canada has no more excuses and must reach 2% spending on NATO – just weeks before the NATO summit in Washington.
But there was one issue that lurked beneath the surface of cross-border politics and wasn’t raised: Should the demand by many US politicians to close down their southern border be counterbalanced by a much quieter, almost secret demand from people to … open the Canadian border, EU style?
It is not as crazy as it sounds.
GZERO commissioned an exclusive poll from our partners at Data Sciences and asked: Would you support an EU-like arrangement between the US and Canada?
The results are fascinating.
Overall, 53% said they would support such an arrangement – 50% in Canada and 55% in the US, while 33% are neutral. And, get this, only 14% are against the idea. Not surprisingly, it breaks down on party lines: 71% of Biden supporters are far more supportive the idea, while 45% of Trump supporters want it. In Canada, it’s almost an even split: 50% LPC/NDP lime it while on the right, 54% of CPC/PPC support the idea.
The point? The longest undefended border in the world is still very defended, and millions of people would like to cross more easily, work more freely, and trade more efficiently. In 2022, US trade with Mexico was $855 billion, and with China it was $758 billion. With Canada? $908 billion.
So making US-Canada trade more efficient with an EU-style arrangement seems like a no-brainer. Last week, we all celebrated D-Day and the beginning of the fight for peace. So many people died in that bloody sacrifice, yet today, the French and the Germans, who fought two world wars that left millions on both sides slaughtered, can move, trade, and work freely across each other's borders in a way Americans and Canada can only dream about. It is baffling.
If anything is a warning about why closing borders and setting up tariffs is disastrous, look at the UK and Brexit, which has essentially tanked the UK economy. The Brexit-loving Conservatives under Rishi Sunak are now facing a potential political extinction event on par with the Canadian Conservative party of 1993, when Brian Mulroney went from winning the biggest majority in Canadian history to stepping down months before an election his party lost so badly they were left with two lonely seats.
We are heading into a US election and a possible Canadian election where low growth, high inflation, and fear of an unstable world might kill prosperity. Why aren’t the two best friends in the world campaigning on an idea that has proven to be one of Europe’s great drivers of growth? An open border.
We all get it. The politics of the southern border is driving politics at the northern border, but if voters can distinguish between the two, why can’t politicians?
They likely never will. And this may be the most 2024 political moment of all: Ignore the quiet ideas people want, and focus on the noisy fights no one can stand.
NATO dues and don’ts: Can Canada get off Trump’s naughty list?
Members of the Western bloc are on edge after Donald Trump said last weekend that he’d encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to allied states that don’t pay their dues. Canada pays well below the 2%-of-GDP NATO guideline and would be high on Trump’s “delinquent” list, but that doesn’t mean Ottawa is ready to pay up.
Trump’s comments drew the ire of … just about everyone. President Joe Biden, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and even fellow Republicans blasted Trump for his comments. The most common refrain was that the former US president was undermining the collective security alliance and emboldening Russia.
But Canadian leaders, who are preparing for a possible Trump 2.0, were more cautious with their response. Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly admitted Canada must “do more” and steered clear of criticizing Trump. Defense Minister Bill Blairalso declined to take a run at the former president.
As Europe spends more on defense, the US has complained for years about Canada’s military spending, which is heading for 1.43% of GDP in 2025 – the highest it’s been in over 12 years. Ottawa’s defense spending is unlikely to rise further anytime soon as the governing Liberals keep an eye on the deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio while struggling to manage the budget ahead of a planned 2025 election.
Munich Security Conference 2024: What to expect
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. It is the Munich Security Conference. It's that time of year, yet again, the 60th Munich Security Conference this year. And you would think that that would be like a big anniversary. It's like platinum or diamonds or something very valuable and exciting. And yet the value of the conference is becoming undermined. And it's becoming undermined not because it doesn't matter, but rather because leaders are less committed to it.
And that is a very deep concern. There's no annual theme to this year's conference, but every year they do put out an annual report. Came out a couple of days ago, and the theme this year was “lose-lose” dynamics. In other words, less focus on multilateralism, less focus on collective security, less focus on global cooperation and instead a prioritization of individual gain of countries and even of leaders. And that's not a great backdrop against a incredibly contentious US election, a war between Russia-Ukraine that isn't going very well, certainly not from the perspective of those that are attending the security conference and also a Middle East war that is expanding and threatens to get the Europeans and the Americans more and more involved. A couple of things that are worth paying attention to that may not be getting as much attention outside Germany.
One is that Christoph Heusgen, the chair of the conference and a good friend of mine for many years now, has come out saying that Trump has a point in terms of his strong criticism of NATO nations not meeting their 2% defense goal. And that, of course, especially means Germany, which is the largest economy in Europe. And they've made lots of commitments, but they've got an economic crisis right now, and there are lots of competing demands inside that country that don't focus on security and defense after all. Germany, not a frontline country dealing with Ukraine or Russia a little bit farther back. And you can really see defense spending fall off the farther you get from Russia, unless, of course, you're talking about the United States.
Another thing that's worth paying attention to and it's going to make it a little harder. Germany last year perceived Russia as their number one security threat.This year, Russia's fallen to number seven. Top issues for the Germans, mass migration and radical Islamic terrorism. That is the Munich Security index that they, you know, sort of take surveys of attendees and of participants. And it's very interesting to see that. That's similar to the view that I got at Davos a few weeks ago. And just talking to people around the world outside of these conferences, Ukraine is nowhere close to the level of prioritization these days, even for countries that are pretty close to it, that it was getting 6 months ago, 12 months ago, 24 months ago, and that, of course, is also a very big problem for the Ukrainians, a very big problem for the frontline states like the Estonians and the Poles and the Nordics, who consider this their top priority but having a harder time telling others that that's what really matters. So those are some of the issues we're looking forward to discussing and you'll be hearing from us again real soon.
- Viewpoint: Amid deepening divisions, EU and Chinese leaders set to meet this week ›
- Dutch voters take hard-right turn: Will more of the EU follow? ›
- NATO has a Trump problem ›
- Ukraine crisis one of many global threats at Munich Security Conference ›
- At the Munich Security Conference, Trump isn't the only elephant in the room - GZERO Media ›
- How to protect elections in the age of AI - GZERO Media ›
NATO has a Trump problem
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. And a Quick Take to kick off your week. Could be so much to talk about. I say kick off. So you think it's Super Bowl, but no, no, I'm not going there. Don't. I mean, I care, but not after the game's over. Then I'm kind of done. It's exciting that way. I love sports. I get very excited and then over immediately.
Let's move on to NATO and lots of hair on fire because former President Trump, about to become the Republican nominee, could easily be president again, says that recounting a conversation he had with a leading European leader. (I suspect he's talking about Angela Merkel and Germany.) And that if they refused to pay, that he wouldn't be interested in defending them Indeed, he would tell the Russians they could do whatever the hell they wanted to countries that refused to pay for their own self-defense. And predictably, this got Europeans very agitated. The NATO' secretary-general, the European Council president, both saying this is only good for Putin. It weakens the alliance with Trump saying that and especially saying that publicly and the Europeans are indeed, almost all the Europeans are panicked about what might happen if Trump were to become president in 2025.
And I think these are all real points and deserve to be responded to. I do think it's important to look at the other side of the equation. At the same time, which is, should there be consequences for American allies that are unwilling to prioritize their own self-defense? And by the way, when I say consequences, I don't mean that the Russians should be able to invade them.
But should there be any consequences or should they just continue to be perfect NATO allies in good standing because the de facto policy of the United States appears to be, “well, otherwise, yeah, tell them they need to pay more, but we're not going to do anything if they don't. ” And that also doesn't seem reasonable. That seems like a policy that is guaranteed to alienate the Americans and lead to a much weaker NATO. In fact, if you are a country that is not spending on your own self-defense for years and years, that also is a strong signal to Vladimir Putin. That also is a very weak signal to the future of the NATO alliance. But unfortunately, that message is never sent by the president of the European Council or by the leaders of the countries that don't care about spending on their own defense.
I mean, the Canadians, for example, spend less than 1.3% of GDP on defense. That's roughly exactly what they were spending in the nineties. Why? Because they don't think they need to they don't think it really matters. The Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards. I mean, most of the large economies other than the United States significantly underspend on defense. They don't have adequate troop readiness, they don't have adequate military capabilities, never mind to provide support for Ukraine or other countries that might need it that aren't NATO members, but even to adequately defend themselves.
And that's a serious problem. It's been going on for decades, in part because of a belief that there was a peace dividend, that there weren't going to be wars anymore in Europe, so they didn't really care about NATO and “let the Americans spend if they want to, but we don't have to.” And that's unacceptable as well, especially when the Russians invade Ukraine. Now, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a lot of countries took it more seriously. That's why Finland has joined NATO, that's why Sweden is about to join NATO. Certainly the front line countries are much more worried and they spend a lot more. But those countries that are free riding in the back, they don't care as much. And clearly the right answer is somewhere in between.
It is that for years and years the Americans need to say that if you don't spend or else, and that all else needs to be consequential, needs to have you know, we won't have as many military exercises with you or we're not going to share the same level of intelligence or we're not going to provide as advanced military equipment. And if you do that and make it matter, then those countries are much more likely to do something like actually take you more seriously than if they know you have no fist in your glove. Now, there is a broader question, which is whether a President Trump actually wants the Europeans to spend 2% and then he'll be happy and committed, or whether he believes that NATO is just a drag on the United States. It’s a multilateral group.
It's a commitment with countries that the Americans would rather not be committed to, that Trump thinks it's a fool's game and would rather leave. There are those that have worked with Trump that feel that way. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton certainly thinks that has articulated that that is Trump's actual private view. Hard to know, hard to know. Will say that Trump feels much more comfortable with allies like the Saudis, for example. And you'll remember that he traveled there before we traveled to European countries or to Canada, in part because the Saudis not just short term transactionally, but longer term are committed to US defense. But also recognize that they need to spend and that there is a very ongoing mutual back scratching between the two countries. And the fact that the Saudis don't share American values is a very little interest to Trump, in part because the United States frequently doesn't live up to those values. And certainly Trump doesn't care very much about them. And that the Europeans, in being committed to multilateralism and rule of law, which Trump isn't as interested in, but also more willing to use that to help, you know, sort of strengthen an alliance system that has values as a component of it, is something that Trump thinks the Americans get taken advantage of with.
Now, again, where you land on that spectrum, I think differs radically on, you know, how old you are, your historic world view of the Cold War, for example, where your country is geographically. You know what your immediate threat environment is like, also how you feel about the United States. I mean, as an American, do you think the US has been good for you or do you feel like you've been screwed by the United States? I mean, if you've got kids that went to war in Afghanistan or even the second war in Iraq and didn't come back, came back with PTSD, and the Veterans Administration didn't take adequate care of you, and you don't think the war was fought justly or for principles that you believe in, you probably feel very differently about what the US should and shouldn't be doing in terms of other military alliances than you do say, my dad, who fought in Korea or others that were World War II veterans, certainly, or those in the United States that didn't fight for anything, but nonetheless feel like the American system did pretty well for them.
And it's that latter problem. It's the fact that so many Americans today don't feel like their political system is legitimate, don't feel like the American dream applies to them, don't feel the class mobility, don't trust their leaders or their institutions across the board. That I think is creating so much space for populists in the United States to say, why are we doing for other countries? Trump's other statement that we saw over the last few days, we shouldn't give any foreign aid. It should all be loans. And if you don't behave in ways that we like going forward, that we should take those loans away and we should make you pay it back. And he didn't say that only applies to the Europeans. From his perspective, that would apply to Israel, that would apply to the Japanese. That would apply to Mexico, Canada, he doesn't care. It's America first. And more Americans will feel that way if they think that their country hasn't taken care of, doesn't take care of them or their kids. I don't feel that way. I'd like to live in a United States, it’s the richest country in the world, and we have much more ability to do more for others. And long term, I think that plays to our advantage.
But I absolutely understand why many Americans no longer feel that way. And I think it's a shame. And I think we need to take responsibility to do something about that if we want a different outcome.
So that's it for me for today. I hope everyone's doing well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- The Graphic Truth: Who's spending more/less on defense? ›
- NATO debates Russia and Trump ›
- Trump: I would encourage Russia to attack 'delinquent' NATO allies ›
- As Russia balks, NATO might gain two strong Nordic recruits ›
- The Graphic Truth: How NATO absorbed its old foes ›
- Munich Security Conference 2024: What to expect - GZERO Media ›
- NATO unity will hold no matter the US election, says Norwegian PM - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Why Biden is the focus of the NATO Summit - GZERO Media ›
Graphic Truth: Military might, Canada vs. US
It will come as no surprise that there's a massive gap between the military assets and capabilities of the US and Canada. After all, no country in the world spends more on defense than the US. But Canada has been getting flak from NATO for falling short of the alliance’s 2% of GDP defense spending guideline. The most recent numbers show Canada’s military expenditures at 1.38% of its GDP. And amid myriad global crises and conflicts, Canada’s Defense Department has been targeted with budget cuts. Is the Canadian government doing enough to strengthen its military?
Off to war again?
No matter how cold it is in your community, it is even colder in the deep winter of discontent that has hit the 2024 political world … aka Mordor.
The year ahead presents two kinds of challenges to the US and Canada: external ones from growing conflicts and internal ones, from US isolationism and what I call “Canadian insulationism.” At the moment, it’s a toss-up which ones are more dangerous.
Let’s look at the external challenges, including the raging conflicts in Israel-Gaza, the Red Sea, and Ukraine – all of which look to worsen in 2024.
Here at Eurasia Group, one of our Top Risks of 2024 is a Partitioned Ukraine — with Russia essentially ending up with about 18% of Ukraine, something once unimaginable. But is that the end? After two years and hundreds of thousands of casualties, will 18% of Ukraine satisfy Putin’s expansionist appetite, or simply whet it for more? The second option is more likely.
Putin has converted his country into a war economy, with over 6% of his GDP going to military spending, and, despite sanctions, there is enough growth there to fuel concern about inflation.
As he sees critical US military support for Ukraine fade and a potential Trump administration on the horizon, Putin is ready to ramp up his aggression. I was at a meeting with a group of ambassadors to the UN yesterday, and many expressed a strong view that Ukraine is still just the start of Russian aggression, not the end. So it is no surprise that next week NATO will start its largest military exercise in over 20 years, with more than 90,000 troops taking part in Steadfast Defender.
This means they are getting ready for a widening war, and that is sobering.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East and North Africa, the Israel-Hamas war churns on, and efforts to contain it are looking increasingly futile. Hamas has not been sufficiently degraded to give up fighting, it still holds hostages, and it has gained wide support around the world, something the once-isolated terrorist group never enjoyed. One of the group’s greatest victories has been the “Hamasification” of the entire Palestinian cause, meaning their radical, annihilationist cause, once a marginal part of the diplomatic conversation, is now THE cause, overtaking the voice of the Palestinian Authority. And because they remain a terror group whose goal is to eradicate Israel, it makes any two-state solution or prospects of a new governance partner in Gaza extremely thorny.
Meanwhile, Israel under the extremist and embattled leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, is gearing up for a much longer battle in Gaza — and the West Bank. He also does not want a two-state solution and never really has. Just today, in shocking remarks, Netanyahu said he does not want a Palestinian state and then said, “in the future the state of Israel has to control the from the river to the sea.” That was a provocative appropriation of a Palestinian rally cry that many Israelis regard as a call for genocide. The radical cycle is now in full spin.
Meantime, after 100 days of brutal bombings that have stunned even Israel’s closest allies, there is no real end in sight. The sophisticated tunnel systems that are discovered daily reveal the resilience of the Hamas military operation, and it is yet another aspect of the situation Bibi badly underestimated and miscalculated.
With the current Israeli and Hamas leadership, there is very little hope for anything but more war.
While most post-Oct. 7 efforts of containment centered on Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, a surprise player emerged: the Houthis. The Shiite militant group in Yemen, which fought a decade-long war against Sunni Saudi-backed forces, is launching ballistic missiles into the Red Sea near the critical Bab el-Mandeb Strait, aka Gate of Tears, which is living up to its name.
The Strait and the Suez Canal account for about 12% of total global trade, so naturally the US and a coalition of 20 countries steamed into the area to protect this critical supply line. This has a long precedent. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson sent the US Navy to fight the so-called Barbary Pirates in North Africa to protect US shipping. Today, the corsairs are Iranian-supplied ballistic missiles, but not much else has changed.
In any case, it has done no good. The Houthis flipped the Ballistic Bird at the US and launched over 30 missile attacks, driving much of the shipping business out of the Red Sea and having an immediate impact on the global economy.
The US and the UK, with the support of countries like Canada, counterattacked with a series of intensive bombing missions targeting Houthi military installations, and once again … nothing changed. This is the Houthi Trap. Red Sea shipping is a Red Line for the global economy, so as long as the Houthi attacks continue and shipping insurance rates go up, the US and its allies will have to respond. Maritime choke points like the Bab el-Mandep, the Strait of Hormuz, the Straits of Malacca, or the Panama Canal (which is too dry right now for some ships to use) – are the Achilles heels of the global economy. When any one of them is under threat, it means one thing: expanded conflict.
The internal threats in the US and Canada, however, make dealing with the external ones significantly harder. The US Republican Party is in the grip of a deep isolationism. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson told President Joe Biden yesterday that there will be no deal for tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine unless he cracks down on the US border. Johnson’s job is on the line, and he knows that if he approves aid to Ukraine, far-right members of his party will make a motion to vacate and dump him, just as they did with the last speaker. And with Donald Trump in full ascension as the likely Republican nominee, US aid to Ukraine is likely coming to an end. America First means America Gone in many parts of the world, and that’s not a good sign when there are expanding wars everywhere.
Canada doesn’t have an isolationist problem. It has a long history of global involvement and is committed to multilateral originations. The problem it suffers from is an insulationist strain. It simply won’t put its money where its multilaterals are.
For example, Canada spends about 1.3% of its GDP on defense – a far cry from the 2% NATO guideline – and there has been deep concern about another CA$1 billion cut from the force this year.
Proximity to the US and being protected by three oceans have given Canadians a sense of insulation from a dangerous world, so there is no political urgency to keep up national defense. You might not buy home insurance if you don’t think your home will ever collapse, but it doesn’t work that way.
As the 2024 world tips toward widening wars, the isolationism of the US and the insulationism of Canada will make things much worse.
As my Dad used to say, the cheap man pays twice. Trying to save now by shirking responsibility in places like Ukraine and getting off easy on defense spending will only make the inevitable bill twice as expensive when it comes. And the security bill is coming.