Thanks for responding - helpful and appreciated.

What are your thoughts on the parallels between Pu-Donbas and a potential scenario involving US-Alberta? It seems that an AB referendum could be used as a (weak) justification for actions that infringe on Canadian sovereignty. Preposterous or uncomfortably plausible?

It’s called competitive authoritarianism: A state where competitive elections still exist, but civil rights are under attack. Steven Levitzky & Lucan Way wrote the following piece in January and have since confirmed their assessment on podcasts: www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state...

Agree the US can learn from Poland (and Brazil), but it’s a mistake to say there’s no US resistance happening. See: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

But Canada should fully expect America’s nascent economic aggression not only to persist, but to escalate substantially.

To weather this storm, we will need to see a level of national ambition, nation building, and infrastructure development this country hasn’t seen in generations.

This is not to say that Canada will see a full-scale invasion from the US, as a number of experts I’ve spoken with for @civildiscourseplease.ca have stated.

Such an operation would be extremely difficult and likely unnecessary to accomplish the goals of economic & geopolitical dominance.

Morning-after follow-up: My parts about “hope” are true. The “believe” part is true, but with around ~60% confidence level… and it will probably fluctuate. Fully expect to see a campaign that tries to divide us. I hope we can stick together through that.

I don’t claim to know all the different interests & ideologies at play, but I think it’s a mistake to attribute Trump‘s actions to a single coherent strategy. The coalition thesis (introduced to me by @aladdintings.bsky.social) is the most compelling I’ve seen, and it’s compatible w yours & others.

My key point is that the domestic agenda can coexist with other agendas. The coexistence of multiple agendas helps all of this make sense. Trump is supported by a coalition with different ideologies & interests. Tech billionaires want different things than the Christian nationalists, for example.

I think the domestic policy agenda probably plays a big role, as you mentioned. E.g., eliminating the IRS would require revenue from other sources like tariffs.

But that doesn’t explain the interest in annexing Greenland, Gaza, Canada, Panama Canal. Resources & kleptocracy help explain these.

Correct. And that is 100% compatible with the China thesis.

Bold to say that an emerging superpower with huge leverage over the US has nothing to do with it. Surely you don’t think it’s just about trade deficit. What’s your take?

Fentanyl has nothing to do with it. This piece helps.

www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/arti...

Thanks for the list! I’ve been reading Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works (2018). I find both helpful for understanding some aspects of the current moment.

No correlation whatsoever.

These firings happening “all at the same time is a terrifying five-alarm fire.”
- Political Scientist @lindsaypcohn.bsky.social Lindsay, I look forward to reading your analysis.