Overall, I thought the speech was mostly an acknowledgement of rising nationalism and adventurism in the world—which is probably warranted. I also thought the appeals for diversification and collaboration, while unlikely to supplant US dominance, were reasonable.

Ultimately, it appears you interpreted the speech as overly idealistic or self-righteous which I think is inaccurate since the speech repeatedly references pragmatism, prudence, and even critiques multilateralism. We might agree that claims about Canada's virtues were mostly posturing.

But it also seems like you are suggesting Carney is wrong to try to pivot away from the United States and that the "rules based order" will return someday. Alternately are you suggesting "globalists" like Carney are just as susceptible to corruption and flights of conquest as America?

Although I agree that Carney's speech, while well written, is somewhat over-hyped, I'm a bit confused about what your conclusion is. It seems like you are mainly pointing out that the speech is not as seminal or shocking as presented and is broadly a continuation of Canada's foreign policy.